This is a reasonably close word for word transcription of the first
danko meeting between the ASIJ Teachers Union and the representatives of the Board.
(Sometimes words are raher inaudible on the tape). A danko (collective bargaining or fact finding) is a legal instrument
of a union wherein they request/demand a discussion with the employers to resolve an issue.
The employer cannot legally reject this and not attend. The union is in
charge of the Danko and its proceedings. The employers may choose a venue. Sincerity
of attitude and response is very important, not only in the meetings, but also later if the situation ends in an arbitration
hearing. The official language of this danko is English with Ms. Kumata being
the official translator between Fukuyama-san and the other people. Since the
union representatives are not fully conversant about all the aspects of ASIJ, its history and policies, and the Board representatives
are not fully aware of proper procedures and regulations regarding danko and unions, there are some times when the discussions
get rather drawn out. (The original summary view that was web posted in June, 2002 is at the bottom of this.)
1st Danko Meeting
Date. Wednesday May 29, 2002
Location: The neighborhood shrine a hundred meters South of ASIJ.
Attendance:
ASIJ
Teachers Union: Fukuyama-San (Union Representative),
Kumata-san (Union Interpreter), Ron Dirkse (President of ASIJTU), Bill Jacobsson (VP), Mid Squier (Union member)
ASIJ
Administration: Tim Thornton (Business Director),
Tim Ilse (Middle School Principal), Noda-San (Ass't. Business Director)
Tim
Thornton, Tim Ilse and Noda-san produced a letter of appointment to negotiate with the Union from the ASIJ Board of Directors
Tim Thornton: I just want
to make sure that what we do here is not on a personal level. We do represent
the school on this. I mean Mid's been my son's teacher, my daughter's teacher. Bill, your kids are at my house right now playing,
my son's best friends. Ron, you're friends. You know my son.. you know we are the same community so this is not something
we look forward to--we do not--it's not a personal issue. But we do represent the school on this and we will present this
to a position on this. But I really don't want to be a personal one. But again, I have no personal.. you know animosity for
any of you. And.. and.. you have the right to your opinion and your feeling and ours representing the school. And I hope we
can keep it at that level as opposed to making any kind of accusation if there's anything on a personal level because again
from looking at our side and your side too, I hope you realize that's not what it's all about. So, THAT SAID, one of the things
I'd like to I guess, uh. something that concerns me... is to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but again the e-mail
that Ron just sent out is, I'm a little bit I guess. The tone is at the bottom edge. I'm sorry anyway just the thing where
it says...uh..You're also worried. Many of you are fearful of possible reprisals if you sign a letter for joining the union.
Again, but I speak for myself, and Tim and Noda-san on this but I don't think all the discussions we've had on this, reprisals
have never been an issue for us at the admin level. And although, I'll be honest with you, we don't cherish these discussions
with you, we don't cherish the whole dealing with unions, or anything like, and you probably don't. We certainly don't feel
that this statement is in the best interest of everybody on there, because I don't think that the admin had ever used reprisals
as one of the ways with dealing with the faculty. Now again that's the feeling I have, on this.
Ron Dirkse: When we have
faculty approaching us saying that they have heard this and that and etc. and they've mentioned administrator's names there
are people scared. They are talking about... if I say this if I do this.. probably going to not get this job or something
is going to happen. That's a VERY REAL concern.
Tim Thornton: Okay, but
again, Ron.. as I said I'm not really uh.. I don't know.. certainly in any of the discussions that we have had at an admin
level the issue of, Well if this person does this then they won't get this job or we won't recommend them...this certainly has
not been an issue for us. And again I don't want to spend a lot of time on it
today, but I just felt it was probably not in the spirit, at least in my viewpoint, of serving the negotiations. Again you may have your view.
The third thing I wanted to talk about here and ask you, Ron, is I think, Ron, in your emails to Lee Daniels you mention
legality. And that is one of your primary concerns. That we are not being legal in this. I don't quite understand
that and if you could explain that. What you feel on that so that we might have
a better idea on this.
Ron Dirkse: Well,
I think that is why Fukuyama-san is here.
Tim Thornton: Again,
I don't care who does it, but I would appreciate knowing why
Ron Dirkse: I think WE are not in control of this meeting, Fukuyama-san
is.
Tim Thornton: Fukuyama-san,
the legality. Mr. Dirkse has written that the school is not legal and I would
like to know where that is.
Fukuyama-san: We would like to make it clear that we feel
there has been an improper change in the working conditions at The American School in Japan and we would like to have these
meetings to discuss these issues and as for the legal issues...Any laws concerning labor are involved with the National Labor
Standards law. To begin with we would like to....
Tim Thornton: Excuse me. Again, I understand that all employees
must be treated equal under Japanese law and I understand that. And when you
say that a policy of 40 years ago must apply--I don't quite understand. The retirement
policy is 60 years old and that hasn't changed. I don't understand where the
illegality is. Sixty years old is still a legal ..to have retirement at 60. That has not changed. Retirement age
is still 60. I am talking about the legality here. Mr. Dirkse has been talking about the legality, I don't understand
that.
Fukuyama-san: The
policies of the school should be on file in the Mitaka Labor Board and you have not done this.
Tim Thornton: I understand and we are in the process of doing
this. The translations are being worked on.
Fukuyama-san: The
Mitaka Labor Office has notified ASIJ that it was required to submit these policies and ASIJ has not done this for 9 years. In Japan any employer of more than 10 people is required to submit these working policies
to the Labor Board and in addition the company must have a representative of the employees verify these. And the Labor Board
has been requiring these for many years. And when Mr. Thornton was asked by the
union to submit these he replied that there was no need to submit these.
Tim Thornton: That
is not true. The school realizes we do have to file and the translations are
being worked on. What I said was that the employees do not have to approve it--they
do have to be part of the discussion, I believe. They do not have to approve
it for changes to be made. That is different.
If management makes a decision in a work rule--as long as they are not in violation of the law--the fact that they
had consultation--they don't have to approve it. Am I correct on that?
Ron Dirkse: Do
you want me to read from the law, here?
Tim Thornton: Again, my understanding of the law is, that as
long as you have consultation that you do not have, now I'm not a lawyer here, but that is the advice we have received on
this.
Ron Dirkse: This
is what it says: "When an employer adds a new provision to the work regulations
that is disadvantageous to workers or modifies an existing provision of the work regulations that is disadvantageous to them
the problem arises as to whether the workers are rightfully bound by that new or modified provision. Japan Supreme Court has taken the stance that modifications of a working condition that has been enjoyed
until the present time in a way that is disadvantageous to workers is, in principle, not allowed."
Tim Thornton: Again,
Ron. I think this is a matter of interpretation.
We have modified a policy, basically, in consultation with the faculty
Ron Dirkse: No,
no, that's not true
Tim Thornton: We
documented quite strongly and worked quite closely with FSCC on this. Now, again,
we have 150 faculty members at school. But we have worked with the faculty on
this. Now it might be advantageous or disadvantageous to some or others, but
basically it is an interpretation. And you look at it one way and we look at
it in another.
Ron Dirkse: Tim,
we are not talking about THIS year. We are talking about what has happened in
the past years to CHANGE the interpretation. Here is Article 92 of the Civil
Code: "The principle of Japan's Civil Code is defacto custom. To explain, simply this refers to a situation whereby in the course of repeatedly doing the same thing
over a long period there emerges a mutual sense of being bound that is similar to a pledge made through a tacit understanding,
even though no mutual pledge has been made in particular. The following interpretation
has taken shape based on decisions handed down through the years in Japan. To
wit, this thinking holds that when a state whereby treatment in accordance with the work regulations continues ever since
the time of starting to work for a company, that becomes a rule in the minds both of labor and management." And that is the interpretation of the Retirement Policy until two years ago when the interpretation was
unilaterally changed to have this man [Mid] told that he was not going to be retained.
Tim Thornton: Again,
I would disagree with that, Ron. The interpretation of the retirement policy,
at least as far as I... my understanding is, and here is where we probably disagree on it is, that it is on a waiver basis.
Ron Dirkse: Yes.
Tim Thornton: Age 60 retirement and then it's at the admin's
discretion, basically, about who stays and who doesn't stay past 60. It is not an automatic right. And here is where I think we disagree fundamentally, Ron. I
think you felt it was automatic, that...
Ron Dirkse: No,
we have never said it is automatic. When Don Berger got "fired" there was no
problem...
Tim Thornton: Again,
the decision...the waiver if you remember correctly we went through the waiver process this year and people didn't get waivers
and that led us down the path, basically at impetus of the faculty to where we are today.
So I don't quite see...you know if we had unilaterally changed the policy maybe you would be right here, but...
Ron Dirkse: You
unilaterally changed the INTERPRETATION of the policy
Tim Thornton: No,
no, no we did not.
Ron Dirkse: Oh,
yes you did.
Tim Thornton: And
here's where we disagree on this. We did not unilaterally change.
Ron Dirkse: Unilaterally
changed the interpretation..
Tim Thornton: Again,
we can argue til we're blue in the face on this
Ron Dirkse: And
then, when we pointed that out in the FSCC then you unilaterally changed the wording in the policy.
Tim Thornton: Again,
the wording in the policy came from a request of the FSCC.
Ron Dirkse: Oh,
no it did not. I was on the FSCC.
Tim Thornton: It
did, too.
Ron Dirkse: I was
on the FSCC.
Tim Thornton: Ron,
sorry, but we can disagree on that, too, but I would disagree with you. Faculty
wanted clarification as to how waivers were granted. And that's why it went into
the policy.
[A discussion among Fukuyama-san, Noda-san and Tim Thornton in Japanese
on this issue and the policy changes.]
Fukuyama-san: Why
did you say that you do not need to file the policies?
Tim Thornton: I
have never said that. Why would I say that?
That's crazy.
Ron Dirkse: Do
we not believe our FSCC reps?
Tim Thornton: Then
I would like to sit down and talk to your FSCC reps. Because, Ron, it doesn't
make any sense. We go to the Mitaka Labor Board, probably 10 times this year. And we realize that we have to submit it, we've been working on it. But I talk to a lot of people--one of the things that was asked of me was, can we see the work rules. And what I said to them was that you can see them--I don't have them--on the internet. I don't have an updated policy. I keep
it on the internet. I don't have a hard copy.
And then I heard that I said they can't see them, so you can see there is a mis-interpretation there. It makes no sense, why would I say they can't see our policies? Everybody
can see our policies.
Ron Dirkse: Were
you not asked whether the school should put them in the Mitaka Labor Office?
Tim Thornton: I probably was and, again, our consultation on
that...we looked at that--and we said Yes--we had to do that.
Fukuyama-san: As
far as the rules of employment it is important to have these on file.
Tim Thornton: We
are in the process of...
Fukuyama-san: Yes,
you are required to and any practices that are not agreed upon you are..
(Japanese between Noda-san and Fukuyama-san concerning the Mitaka Labor
Board filing)
Fukuyama-san: We
would like to remind you that in 1993 the Mitaka Labor Office requested that American School should stipulate allowances for
overtime and also for paid leave. At that time you were requested to make it
clear about these. It has been 9 years since this request was made..
Tim Thornton: We
have been translating...
Kumata-san: It
has been 9 years
Tim Thornton: We have been translating for 9 years? We are in the process of the translating and there are some issues that have to be dealt with in terms
of working conditions and Japanese law. So it is something that takes time. We
can talk about it now for an hour or two hours--but we also realize that we have to file it and we are in the process of doing
that. We can go back to 1993 or 1996. The
fact is we are in the process of doing them right now. If the Mitaka Labor
Office comes to us and fines us 300,000 yen then that is something that we will have to deal with that when it comes. But right now we are doing everything we can and in the best way we can to get it
translated.
Fukuyama-san: As
for the teacher's union at ASIJ we are not satisfied with these answers because the school administration has had the obligation
for 9 years and for all these years the regulations were unilaterally changed. The
Japanese labor standards' laws stipulate that any changes in the working regulations should be consulted with the workers
organization and any changes should then be accompanied to the Labor Office with a paper stating that there was a change and
the teachers were consulted. In November 2001 the administration stated that
they were not going to employ teachers over 60 and in April 2002 [sic] Mr. Cooper said they would employ those over 60 with
special expertise.
Mr. Isle: In November
2001 the administration decided to not employ teachers over 60?
Kumata-san: In
Novemeber 2001 there was a consultation with the FSCC...
Ron Dirkse: That
was the date we were all told...
Tim Ilse: In April
2002
Tim Thornton: I
think there is a difference in dates there.
Fukuyama-san: I Februarry 2002, Mr. Cooper said
they will continue employment of those over 60 who have special expertise...
(Discussion regarding dates)
Tim Thornton: First
of all, you said in November 2002 Mr. Cooper said that we would no longer employ anyone over 60. That is not true.
Ron Dirkse: That's
what he told us.
Tim Thornton: I
can assure you that was never done. The waiver system stays the same. There was never any policy change that said that we would not employ anyone over 60.
Ron Dirkse: Then
why would he tell us that?
Tim Thornton: Again, what he told you for the waiver--he
didn't grant you a waiver. There was never a policy change that said we are changing our policy and no one over 60 will be
employed anymore. If we would have done that then why would we then in April
have said these are the conditions for waivers? It doesn't make sense and so
there has never been any change that said we will change the policy. There was
never anything at admin or Board level to change that policy.
Fukuyama-san: These teachers over 60 will return at
step 5.
Tim Thornton: Okay, now, again here, you are talking
about different things, here. First thing is there has never been any policy
change from the 60 retirement waiver. What happened was that the waivers were
not granted and then there was a lot of discussion with faculty and we came up with a change in the policy which allowed people
to be rehired at the age of 60. And when they were rehired they were rehired
at the conditions of-- it's not a waiver system--it's their choice to be rehired at the age of 60 until age 65. But the old waiver system was, again, changed because of discussions with the faculty --quite extensive
discussions with the faculty. Retirement age is 60 and that hasn't changed. It's always been 60. It used to be that
we had a waiver system and some people were given a waiver and some were not. But
that was at the discretion of the administration. Very similar to Japanese companies. But we changed it due to much discussion about concerns for families, for planning and we changed it to--60 is still retirement--that hasn't changed. And then from 60 to 65 you can be rehired at the employee's--not the employer's--discretion. And the retirement
conditions, the employment conditions for rehiring also changed.
(Discussion in Japanese among Fukuyama-san, Noda-san and Tim Thornton.)
Tim Thornton : The new policy allows the
teacher the choice to be rehired. Under the old policy it was at the discretion
of the administration.
Fukuyama-san: But then for the teacher there has been
a change in the working conditions.
Tim Thornton: But under the old system they would not
have been rehired.
Fukuyama-san: Why?
Tim Thornton: Under the grounds that it was an administrative
decision. The administration and Board of Directors' decision.
Ron Dirkse: Here, again, Tim, this is a very different
interpretation of the policy. We have been here for 30 some years. And we know what the interpretation of that policy was. When
Vicky Downs completed 30 years she said she was going to teach for 40. And no
one batted an eyelash that she was not going to be allowed to teach for 40. People
who were not rehired--there were reasons that were explainable to the faculty why they were not rehired.. There was never a good, solid teacher who was not extended beyond the age of 60. That was the policy that we were hired under and we have lived with until two years ago.
Tim Thornton: But, again, Ron, I think that that is
your interpretation. And the policy and the administration and the Board --it
is the administration's discretion when a teacher reaches 60. That's what it
said in the policy. And, again, in this case here, I don't think that your interpretation,
or my interpretation which is the administration's interpretation that it is the administration's discretion. And I don't think that in any way-- that any teacher should be a good teacher until they retire--that is
expectations. But that never did make an automatic waiver under the old policy.
It was a year by year, case by case basis.
Ron Dirkse: But there was no question that a good teacher
would...
Tim Thornton: But there, again, that is your interpretation. That's where we disagree on.
Ron Dirkse: Peter raised Don Berger as supposedly a
signal that something was changing. Don Berger never even submitted his letter
by October 1st. He wasn't even going to apply to be rehired. He had been in a motorcycle accident. His
skills were going down, his mobility was going down--Peter uses him as an example that,
Boy, now Peter Cooper is here and therefore there is a new policy in place. The
next year he rehired Dot Adamson who was 62. He hired Irene Gilman who was 62. That's a message we're hearing?
Tim Thornton: Again, Ron. The issue, again, from a legal issue--and we can argue about this saying whatever. But from the legal side of it we feel that our policy, our retirement policy has not changed. 60 retirement has always been that way and that has not changed..
And with extensive discussion with our faculty we have allowed a teacher to extend.
Whereas before it was at the discretion of the administration. And, again,
the interpretation, your interpretation was that anybody who was a good teacher should be allowed to stay and the administration's,
at least in our tenure here, is that the school, and I can't speak beyond that or before that, but that that wasn't the case. We feel that this was a compromise. We
talked with the faculty extensively on this and I don't know where we can go on this.
Our feeling is that it has taken away....and given security to, people who do turn 60.
Now there is no risk that you will not have a job.
Ron Dirkse: Of course there is. If I am a lousy teacher I'm not going to be rehired.
Tim Thornton: Well, again, that's the same whether
you're 27 or 62.
Ron Dirkse: Then there is no change from the other,
either. If I was a good teacher I expected that I would be able to stay until
I was 62.
Tim Thornton: That's again where we differ.
Ron Dirkse: I have no more guarantee now. All I know is that the guarantee is I go to step 5.
Tim Thornton: I disagree. Before this it was a year by year, now there is 5 years. Before
it was at the discretion of the Board on a year by year basis.
Fukuyama-san: (translation not available)
Tim Thornton: Again I'm not quite understanding what
Fukuyama-san is saying.
Fukuyama-san: You have changed the policy.
Tim Thornton: No the policy has not been changed. Retirement is still at 60. But now if
they wish, a teacher may stay until 65. But they will be rehired. Again, as Ron said about conditions, it is always expected that every teacher, every administrator, every
employee of the school is subject to evaluation. In our school culture it's something
that I don't think the chances are--naturally if someone were to beat a child, to rape a child obviously no matter who they
were there is no guarantee, but again based on the new policy the teacher may choose to be rehired without a yearly approval
of the administration. That's the difference we have now from what we used to
have. (Tim translated for Fukuyama-san)
Fukuyama-san: Could you tell us what the former regulation
was?
Tim Thornton: The former regulation was that when the
faculty member reached the age of 60 and retired, they apply for a waiver and on the waiver each year the waiver is approved
or not approved by the administration.
Fukuyama-san: So what was the condition that you not
be rehired?
Tim Thornton: The conditions for rehiring after 60
depended on a lot of conditions and it would be hard to clarify those. It was
on a case by case basis.
Fukuyama-san: What were the conditions under which
you allowed a teacher to remain?
Tim Thornton: Again, it was in discussions with administrators
and according to the policy manual, did they offer a specialty to the school.
Fukuyama-san: Under what conditions were the applications
rejected?
Tim Thornton: Sometimes it is very difficult. I agree with that. But again the school
from 60--we can argue about assessment and we can argue about other things. But
the administration makes that decision for people over 60.
Fukuyama-san: I understand that teachers over 60 will
be re-employed with the condition that it is the decision of the Administration. It
is not automatic.
Tim Thornton: Correct.
Fukuyama-san: What are the reasons?
Tim Thornton: Well, again, there may not be reasons
(end of tape side 1) Before it was management decision and how we decided that
again was something that we decided. Now it is not management's decision anymore,
it is up to the employee
Fukuyama-san: It seems like under the past policy there were exceptions.
Tim Thornton: Under the current system, my current
system, the only way that Mr. Dirkse would not be allowed to stay would be if he committed a crime.
Mid Squier: What about evaluations?
Tim Thornton: Mid, the whole process of evaluations
I don't think at this stage is really relevant. Our evaluation process is a professional
growth evaluation process. Whether you're 27 or 62 you assume you will be evaluated.
Mid Squier: But
if I do not do well, I shouldn't be rehired.
Tim Thornton: But,
again, if you...
Mid Squier: I mean,
that should be a given.
Tim Thornton: I
would agree. The key problems here is the --mis-interpretation here is that in
your case if you are doing a good job than we should be rehired under the waiver system and if doing a bad job then not. And it is the administration's decision on this.
And unless you are giving something special to the school then, Thank You, because 60 is the retirement age. You can be a good performer and be rehired at your choice. Not
a waiver, now it is your choice. Maybe others feel they do a good job and should
get a waiver, but that is not the feeling of the Board and administration.
Bill Jacobsson: That's where these changes have been to this
policy. In years past if people who were under that policy those were granted
very regularly, with only an exception or two--Don Berger being one. This was
a physical basis. The change in the policy has come in the interpretation and
the application in the policy.
Tim Thornton: I
don't think the policy has changed. It was on a year by year basis.
Bill Jacobsson: The
change has occurred in the interpretation and implementation of that policy.
Tim Thornton: And
again I guess we could argue again that what happened before with Ray or before in the history with Peter and we could talk
with Ray on these same kinds of questions with things again on a year by year basis there are some changes. I don't think the policy has changed. I think it has always
been under the discretion of the administration. Has it changed from the past? I don't know. Maybe there were cases
that were justified in the past--I don't know and I really can't argue that because I don't know.
Bill Jacobsson: When
I hear the laws read with people living under a policy and the interpretation of it, that, in fact, becomes the law. And maybe that's where you guys are going to have to talk. That interpretation, what Ron just read, becomes the law of the land.
Yes we have the right to expect that simply because that has been what has been happening as we go along. So, that is a change when Peter called us all in and summarily dismissed us all, that was a change in the
interpretation and implementation of the policy. That is clearly, by these laws,
in my opinion that we go back to...
Tim Thornton: And,
again, Bill, that...
Bill Jacobsson: That's
where the loggerhead comes, right? The wording of the policy states--the interpretation
and the implementation of that policy changed.
Tim Thornton: And
it may very well be that it ends up in court. I mean somebody else decides that.
Bill Jacobsson: Is
that the loggerhead?
Tim Thornton: I
think so and I agree with you. The agreement the interpretation, and I don't
speak for myself, I think I speak for the administrators, that our interpretation is the way we applied it this year. That's different than your interpretation. And
again who's right and who's wrong. I really don't...and maybe it is something
that has to go to somebody else to decide.
Ron Dirkse: But
when we pointed out that change of interpretation to Peter in Mid's case, the result was to change the wording in the policy
without any discussion from us. The result of our raising that issue was Peter
saying to both John OLeary and I, that You'd better not open this case up or its going to come back at you in a way we don't
like. That was the atmosphere of the discussion.
That was not a mutually agreed upon situation at all. So then there came
a policy that said we needed special skills. Okay, we all have special skills. We are good teachers, we get good evaluations, so we should be able to continue to
teach at ASIJ. Well, this year there's no mention of this special skills when
we are called down to Peter's office. No mention at all of any special skills. It is now going to be the decision that there would be no waivers granted anymore--Peter's
words.
Tim Thornton: And,
again, Ron I wasn't there. But I certainly know at the admin level this is not
the case, and Tim [Ilse] you were there.
Ron Dirkse: You
see this is the problem here, I get a phone call, and so did the others, from
Tanaka-san saying that Mr.Cooper would like to see me. So I go down there in
the middle of the day not knowing what it was about, is it about tennis, is it about the Far East, whatever. I walk into this office and here's Nancy sitting there, who, one week before, gave me an excellent evaluation
in the office with Don. No mention made of any of this type of stuff. She's sitting there, Peter is standing there and says, Please sit down.
I sit down and about a minute and a half without any pleasantries exchanged he is saying, I'm done. Nancy says nothing at all. I have no witnesses. I am not told in advance what this is going to be about. I
should have had an FSCC person with me as a witness just as Nancy was. And all
of us were called into that situation very similar. Wally Ingebritson, Bill,
Matsumoto-sensei-- An incredible lack of How to handle this situation.
Tim Thornton: I
think I will check with Peter...but I know for a fact that there was never a statement or policy that waivers will never be
granted.
Tim Isle: That
was never part of our session.
Tim Thornton: So,
why would he tell you that, Ron, I'm not calling you a liar, I just don't know.
Ron Dirkse: So
he is telling us that we have no special skills. Because that is what the new
policy states--If you have special skills that are needed by the school, then...
Tim Thornton: But, again, I think that this is a situation again
where the change in the new policy eliminates that sort of discussion. We can
go back again to the three of you who have been here a long time and say well this is the way we have done it...making it
automatic makes it less of a problem, and I don't think again that our interpretation was that. And our interpretation is not that people who didn't get waivers were bad guys, and I guess this is the
nub of the situation, where you guys feel it should be everybody but bad guys should be rehired and the administration says
that if at age 60 unless you have special skills that nobody else can offer to the school, then we will not grant a waiver.
That's very subjective and under the new policy from 60 to 65 gets rid of that. That,
again...
Ron Dirkse: But
when Japan raised its retirement age from 55 to 60, we did not do anything with this policy whatsoever, because we did not
feel there was a need for any change. The retirement policy of ASIJ was put into
place when the retirement age of Japan was 55. So the Board was a very forward
looking Board at that time to have it 5 years ahead of Japan. When Japan raised
its age to 60 we said there's no need to change. There was no difficulty
in continuing to teach for another year or two. But if we knew this was going
to happen, we would have said well, Japan is raising it 5 years, so ASIJ should raise it 5 years also. What's magic about
60? You've heard Wally in the RT talk about this.
Just happens to be the birth date you have. Therefore you go to step 5.
Therefore you're out of here. What's magic about 60?
Tim Thornton: Again, we can argue on retirement ages also, Ron. But I don't think we can settle that today.
I think today the purpose was to look at the legality issues that Fukuyama-san raised and to hear our side of the issue
as well.
Fukuyama-san: We understand that before April 2001, teachers
with special skills could be reemployed
Tim Thornton: Again,
I would disagree with that. All along any teacher who reached the retirement
age of 60 had to apply for a waiver. This was not an automatic decision.
Fukuyama-san: But
in April 2001 the school added a new regulation that the school would not reemploy those over age 60 unless they had special
skills or expertise.
[A discussion, mostly in Japanese,
between Fukuyama-san, Noda-san and Tim Thornton concerning some dates of different events.
In April 2001, the addition of special skills was added. In November 2001
many teachers were notified that there would be no waivers--although Tim Thornton says that was never a topic at the Admin
council. Then in February, 2002 the new policy was presented where those
over 60 could stay if they went to step 5. This was approved by the Board in
March 2002, and a letter from Union members and other concerned teachers went to the Board on March 29, 2002. (This letter can be seen on the sidebar)]
Tim Thornton:
And again, I think, I don't know if Peter said no waivers are granted this year, but I don't think there was ever a
situation where we said waiver system was eliminated at that time.
Mid Squier: I remember
hearing Tim [Ilse] tell me that no one was granted a waiver.
Tim Ilse: It could
be I said that.
Tim Thornton: In
hindsight it would be good to talk to everyone involved to agree on what was said.
Ron Dirkse: Peter's
was much stronger.
[More discussion in Japanese between Fukuyama-san and Tim Thornton
about dates and the letter of March 29 to the Board]
Kumata-san: (To Tim Thornton) Would
you tell them that in English?
Tim Thornton: So
basically I think the mistake here is, Ron, in looking at this is Peter said, and you've written here, We will not renew anyone's
contract--with reference to waivers--this year. And the inference is that they
will not be renewed ever again. And, again, from the Admin Council side that
was never an issue. So, I think the interpretation there is that if Peter said
there would not be any renewal of these contracts, he meant to say that was for this year.
For it certainly, again from an Admin..
Tim Ilse: And that's...
I spoke directly to Mid and said it was for this year. Maybe I was asleep at
the Admin and something went by me, but I don't think that is the case--at least to my recollection.
Tim Thornton: And
mine, too.
Ron Dirkse: But
there were five of us who were told in Peter's office and all of us were told something to the effect that we have decided
to move toward granting no waivers.
Tim Thornton: And,
again, Ron I wasn't there.
Ron Dirkse: And
therefore they did not have to make any decisions about who could stay and who could not.
And now it was just going to be a blanket and everybody's out. That was
definitely the impression that all of us got. And now, yes we can come back if
we go to step 5. We looked at this in terms of now we have the Centennial Celebration
coming up next year, we have the celebration for Ki Nimori, long-standing teachers from the past are going to be flown in
for next years celebration, ...and we get the axe.
Tim Thornton: You
can look at that two ways, Ron. We are now guaranteeing 5 years of employment. You can work until 65, the kids' education, still allows for a reasonable standard
of living.
Ron Dirkse: It
is an insult to us.
Tim Thornton: And,
again, that depends on your point of view.
Ron Dirkse: It
is an insult to all of us.
Tim Thornton: Well,
maybe to you, Ron, but..
Ron Dirkse: To
all of us. You heard them in the R.T.
Tim Thornton: Well
I heard some people, but I also heard a lot of other things too.
Ron Dirkse: You
heard Hohenthaner, you heard Wally, you heard Bill, you heard the other people who were insulted.
Tim Thornton: Well, again, we can argue that, insult or not. The issue of today is the legal issue. And
if Fukuyama-san thinks it is a legal issue then maybe the courts or the arbitrators will decide. Again, I think the Board and the FSCC and administration have looked at this in depth and I don't see a
situation where the Board will go back and review this unless it is a court mandate.
And I'm speaking now as to how I think we feel on this.
Ron Dirkse: Well,
we feel we have a very strong case and we will pursue it because we do not feel this was discussed at all properly.
Tim Thornton: And,
again, that's something...
Ron Dirkse: And
you and I both know what the FSCC is involved with. The FSCC has a lot of different
sides coming at it. This is really not even an FSCC type of an issue. We don't have any problems with policies getting changed and so on.
But policies need to be changed in a legal fashion.
Tim Thornton: I
think you have that word wrong.
Ron Dirkse: The
laws state totally different.
Tim Thornton: Again,
we have a different interpretation. We feel we did do everything in a legal fashion
and I think we can go on and on and on on this and we are not going to solve it.
Ron Dirkse: No,
but if there is an interpretation for 40 years, of how the policy has been handled, then that is the way the policy is supposed
to be handled in the future.
Tim Thornton: And,
again, our interpretation is that our retirement policy has not changed, retirement has always been at 60.
Ron Dirkse: The
INTEPRETATION of the policy has changed.
Tm Thornton: And,
again, we can sit hear and we can argue and argue and never settle anything. Neither
of us are lawyers and I have had enough experience with Japanese courts to know that everything is grey. And even those things that seem to be solidly black.... and its grey..
Ron Dirkse: Well,
we have had five lawyer opinions saying that...
Tim Thornton: Well,
again, that's a choice that you guys have to make on this. But I'm here to say,
on behalf of the school, that our position is what we have presented. And we're
not going to go back on this issue. And, again, this is not a personal issue,
I have no....You have the right to do this and a legal right and that's why the courts are there, Ron.
Fukuyama-san: The letter from the union and other concerned
faculty was written on March 29 and you did not reply until May 8th. We
understand the extension of teaching until age 65 and this is good, but the step 5 is not a good change. This is a step down.
Tim Thornton: This
is not a step down. This is a different contract after they retire.
Fukuyama-san: You
have said that the Board has a financial responsibility, but there has been record enrollment at the school so we would like
to ask you again, what is the grounds for reducing the wages?
Tim Thornton: Again,
this decision is not a financial decision, it is based on a management decision to have the policy to stay until 65 and the
rehire conditions to go to step 5. This has nothing to do with anything other
than a management decision.
Fukuyama-san: This
reducing to step 5
Tim Thornton: Again,
we don't agree with that. It is not a step down.
Basically it is being rehired under new conditions. We don't understand
why we are here either. It is not a step down.
It is a rehiring with new conditions.
Fukuyama-san: Those
teachers who were 60, and before were rehired, did they stay with same salaries?
Tim Thornton: Under
the waiver system they were able to keep the same salary.
Fukuyama-san: So
we understand that this is a wage down.
Tim Thornton: We
disagree on that.
Bill Jacobsson: Could somebody explain to me what is your definition
of rehired?
Tim Thornton: Well
at the age of 60 your regular salary and working conditions are stopped and the new set of conditions are established from
61 onwards. So, therefore it's not...our interpretation is that it is not a step
down, it is basically you are rehired with a new set of conditions. So they are
not really comparable. It's not apples and apples. And Fukuyama-san says it is a step down. Our argument is that
it is not a step down. These are conditions that if you want to be rehired you
will be rehired.
Mid Squier: So
essentially you are being fired.
Tim Thornton: No
you are retired at 60. And then you're back and if you wish...
Ron Dirkse: That's
forced retirement.
Tim Thornton: At
60, this is retirement age, Ron.
Ron Dirkse: The
interpretation has never been that.
Tim Thornton: The
interpretation has always been you have a 60 retirement age.
Ron Dirkse: The
interpretation of that....
Tim Thornton: Again,
I said we can go back and forth on this until we are blue in the face. 60 is
retirement.
Ron Dirkse: You
want to know why we say that this is a legal issue and that is why it is a legal issue.
Tim Thornton: And,
again, I disagree with you and you disagree with me and it's not for you or I to say.
Its not going to make any difference for us to argue at all. And it is
something I would like to convince you and you would like to convince me, we're not going to do that. So I don't know what else I can say. I'm not going to convince
you and you're not going to convince me. So I think the only course available
is if Fukuyama-san feels that there's another step, that's your decision.
Bill Jacobsson: For
somebody who is 40 and their contract is up are they rehired?
Tim Thornton: Again,
they haven't reached the mandatory retirement age of 60, Bill. It's not on the
contract....
Ron Dirkse: You
just said mandatory retirement age.
Tim Thornton: It's retirement age at 60.
Ron Dirkse: You
said mandatory retirement.
Tim Thornton: Retirement
age is 60.
Ron Dirkse: That's
a change in policy.
Tim Thornton: No. Our retirement age is 60, Ron.
Ron Dirkse: Its
not mandatory.
Tim Thornton: Our
retirement age is 60.
Fukuyama-san: The
new regulations of going to step five is way below the middle of the salary scale. The
labor standards law stipulates that, as well as UNESCO, that working conditions and regulations with teachers should be determined
through the process of negotiation between teachers and the employers. So if
there was a change in the regulations there should be consultation with those affected.
Tim Thornton: We
did.
Fukuyama-san: We
have had no right to negotiate with the administration.
Tim Thornton: FSCC
has representatives on the Personnel Committee of the Board.
Fukuyama-san: But
they have no right to vote on this issue. Who changes this policy?
Tim Thornton: The
Personnel Committee.
Fukuyama-san: The
FSCC said that since reduction in salary now exists and a new retirement policy is in place there should be a Board commission
and should be consulted from now on. There should be more discussion with regard
to Mid Squire's contract. What kind of contract does he have?
Tim Thornton: He
has a new contract at step 5.
Fukuyama-san: Do
you have any reasons for this step 5?
Tim Thornton: Again,
as I said before. I am not going to be convinced.
We went over this for over a year with the FSCC. Whether Fukuyama-san
agrees with this or not, at the time the FSCC was the official representative of the school.
We discussed it, we discussed it, we discussed it. There is no need to
have a final statement issued. And, again, maybe it is something to look at in
the future. We have many things to look at.
But as for right now the decision was made to go with what we decided. That
does not mean we are going to keep going and change it until we get back to it. If
you want to go back to the waiver policy--you didn't get waivers. Is that what
you want to go back to? If you want to go back to the waiver system then people are not going to get waivers.
Ron Dirkse: That's
what we want to do.
Tim Thornton: So
do you agree with our decision then?
Ron Dirkse: No
Tim Thornton: Exactly. So whatever decision we make you're not going to agree with it.
Ron Dirkse: We
want to go back to the old system AND the old interpretation.
Tim Thornton: No,
Ron. The old interpretation is where we disagree. Your interpretation is
that you want everyone to stay as long as they want at their discretion.
Ron Dirkse: No,
it's not
Tim Thornton: That's
what you are saying.
Ron Dirkse: No,
it has never been that. We realize that it's not 100%. We have always realized that
Tim Thornton: Jikan
desu (as the clock strikes)
[More brief discussion about when the policies will be put into the
Mitaka Labor Board. There is mention that it possibly will be by June 2002, but
it is not all translated yet.]
------------------------------------------------------------------
May 29, 2002 (Preliminary and unofficial copy. Meeting was taped by both parties)
Notes on the meeting regarding the retirement
policy of the American School In Japan (ASIJ)
Date. Wednesday May 29, 2002
Location: The neighborhood shrine a hundred meters South of ASIJ.
Attendance:
ASIJ Teachers Union: Fukuyama-San (Union Representative), Kumata-san (Union Interpreter),
Ron Dirkse (President of ASIJTU), Bill Jacobsson (Union member), Mid Squier (Union member)
ASIJ Administration: Tim Thornton (Business Director), Tim Ilse (Middle School Principal),
Noda-San (Asst. Business Director)
Thornton, Ilse and Noda produced a letter of appointment to negotiate
with the Union by the ASIJ Board of Directors
Reprisal:
Tim Thorton opened the meeting laying the groundwork for hopefully non-personal discussion of employee and employer
rights.
Tim took exception to a sentence included in the April 24, 2002 letter to the faculty.
The sentence is: "We are also aware that many of you are fearful of possible reprisal if you sign a letter to join
us in the union, or in any way show support." He stated neither the Board nor
the Administration have ever had such a discussion.
Illegality:
Tim Thornton asked for a clarification on what the employees consider to be illegal. In subsequent discussion Union Representative Fukuyama identified issues the Union and employees see as
not legal under Japanese law and real world practice.
Issues:
·
Policy changes have been made by the Administration/Board without proper (legal) employee approval.
o
1964 Employment
extensions granted upon teacher request each year after 60. Teacher receives
full salary and benefits. Requests were routinely extended until Nov. 2000 (60
Extension Policy)
o Nov 2000 Employment over 60 extended
if teacher possesses special skills. Teacher receives full salary and benefits. The
term special skills has not been defined. (Special Skills Policy)
o
Nov. 2001 No employment of people
over 60. No extensions (waivers) granted to any one over 60 (No Wavier Policy)
o
Feb. 2002 Mandatory retirement and
Rehire at 60/61 with base pay capped at step five of salary schedule. The retirement income benefit would decrease to 5.7%
of base pay. Benefits unchanged: health insurance and childrens education. (65
Cap Policy)
·
ASIJ was instructed in 1993 by the Mitaka City Labor Office to file the employee policies in Japanese. This has not been done at this time.
Although Tim Thornton indicated the policies are being translated at the present time, a specific date of
completion was not rendered. The school could be fined Yen 300,000 for failing to comply with this law and Tim said the school
would pay this if necessary.
·
Working policies governing employees must be approved by the workers.
o
Tim said this has been done through the Faculty Staff Concerns Committee (FSCC).
o
Union members take exception to the FSCC claim by Tim Thornton because the FSCC is not a voting body in
policy making nor in representing the Faculty and Staff to the Board.
·
Union Members want the 60 Extension Policy reinstated together with the previous interpretation of
routinely granting extensions to satisfactorily performing employees of age 60 years and over.
o
Tim indicated his belief that the 60 Extension Policy was not changed.
He feels the Administration has, at it own discretion, the right on a yearly basis to grant or not grant
extensions (He used the word wavier for extension).
o
The Union membership cite 40 years of ASIJ Administration interpretation and implementation of routinely granting
extensions to faculty and staff who continue to satisfactorily perform their duties and submit the request on time. Therefore, these employees have the right, by previous examples of Administration application of this policy,
to expect extensions will be granted. Japanese law clearly seems to support this
stance of the employees.
·
Grounds for Administration and Board offering reduced wages.
o Tim said the decision was not financial but a managerial decision. No explanation of the criteria for making, or what constitutes, a managerial decision
was offered.
