To: ASIJ Board of Directors

From ASIJ Teachers’ Union

Date:  November 29, 2004

Board of Directors, The American School In Japan

cc.: Tim Carr and Tim Thornton

We appreciate the rescinding of the non-regular contracts at ASIJ.  This proposal appears to be an honest attempt by the Board to resolve the issue of future retirements at ASIJ.

We still believe that all forms of discrimination, including AGE, need to be eliminated from the ASIJ policies.  We have always felt the Non-Regular contracts were discriminatory and their implementation illegal, for those hired prior to their inception.  The recently adopted policy (dated: Nov. 18, 2004), although still containing age discrimination, is an improvement.  Be reminded that variations of this were originally proposed by the FSCC five years ago.

However, the Board’s using this proposal as a reply to our letter/proposal of May 27, 2004 clearly fails to show an understanding of the ASIJ Teachers’ Union’s long standing and main concern. 

We have always believed that,

• The unilateral changes in personnel policies and their implementation are illegal in Japan, unnecessary at ASIJ, and detrimental to staff morale.
• Employees are entitled to be governed by the policies, interpretations and implementations in effect at the time of their hiring unless both parties agree to a suggested change(s).
• Unless a clear and honest case could be made as to the need of forced retirement at age 60, the unilateral change in interpretation, implementation and wording of policies attached to our contracts is illegal.

Does the Board seriously deem it has the right to not uphold the policies of our contracts?  That is our concern. 

Although, we do not agree with any specific age cutoff for retirement, we are willing to accept this aspect of the new proposal.  But, along with the nullification of the non-regular contracts, there must be restitution of the lost wages/benefits that we suffered under the Non-Regular contracts.  Making the retroactivity to only August 2004 does not address the issue of lost wages/benefits prior to this date—and thus does not address our major concern of unilateral changing of long standing policies of our signed contracts.

We would earnestly request a much more speedy reply than the past 6-month wait.

Sincerely,