Click Here for an Update!

Recording a Precedent

日本語

Thank you for being the “eyes” in this case, whoever you may be. When any kind of abuse is kept a secret, it is bound to repeat. When abuse is spoken out, when it is known to more people, when more eyes are watching, it makes it difficult for further abuse to happen. Therefore, your only “job” as a reader of this case, is to be informed (and if you would like: to seek more information from both sides).

- Know that there is a Labour Dispute between the teacher and the school.
- Know that it stemmed from harassment and the silencing of it, according to the teacher.
- Know the different paths the teacher has taken to solve her problem.
- Know that the teacher has given her evidence of her claims fully in court, and based upon it and the school’s evidence, the judge has made a recommendation.
- Know that this court case is officially public, and is open to any body to attend at any time (in Kasumigaseki, Tokyo District Court, 13th Fl, 部１９ on given dates and times).

In this case, the problem happened to a teacher. It is important to know of some precedent should it ever happen to another teacher, or a student, his family or even other international school teachers in similar circumstances. Currently, there is no written precedent of what to do when you have a serious problem within an international school. Members of the school community remember that Japan Soccer Coach and former St. Mary’s parent, Ruy Ramos (ラモス瑠偉) had once taken the opportunity to address the issue of school bullying on Japanese TV in the early 2000s.

St. Mary’s deserves to be an excellent school, not by omission of its problems, but by solving problems properly. Currently, the school has no clear teacher-evaluation procedure: how/when/why a teacher should continue teaching or be fired. This may cause the school to have many uncertified teachers, teachers who have not been evaluated in years, good teachers who are overlooked etc. In this case, a teacher was fired on an undocumented whim. Teachers leave their home countries behind to educate the students at St. Mary’s and spend a lot of their own money to set up lives here, just like other ex-pat families. Some degree of fairness and security is necessary for the stability of the school and the retention of good teachers in the long run. Few internationally-savvy teachers these days would want to stay long-term at a school with one-year contracts, no clear policy about job security, and large set-up costs (i.e. 6 months rent upfront in Setagaya-ku).

It is important not to fear solving problems. Be a critical thinker. Read the blogs and ask questions. Read flyers, recycle them and keep the seed of information should it ever become useful to you.

Japan is one of the best places in the world in which to live and work. There are laws that are upheld and if private residents / citizens have a problem, there are judiciary channels through which it can be solved. Even foreign residents are protected fully under this civilized and gracious protection.

Thus, the teacher in this case, is very grateful to be able to resolve this administrative / labour dispute through the courts. There are much worse problems in the world, where people suffer greatly, without any recourse to help themselves.

Legalistically, this case is only a labour dispute. But of course, the drive to fight it properly has to do with the theme of: “abuse of power with impunity”.

Thus, to persist with this case, to bring watchful eyes on the teacher’s problem vis-a-vis certain administrators, it is hoped that the treatment of all teachers doesn’t deteriorate again. Furthermore, whether or not the case is successful for the teacher, this exercise in using this hard-won judicial system to check if she is right or wrong, is important in and of itself.

Here is Isabel Allende talking about the age-old problem of abuse of power with impunity from minute 15:56:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/isabel_allende_tells_tales_of_passion.html

September 15th, 2009 Court Hearing Results

Today, the judge met independently first with the teacher’s side and then the school’s side to hear their acceptance / rejection of his recommendation.

After learning the two sides’ wishes, he met with the teacher’s side to say that the school is not willing to do much of what the judge has recommended. He said that it is clear that we shall continue with the case.

Testimonies will happen in about January 2010. Visitors and spectators are welcome to come (dates and places to be announced when known).

The testimonies will actually be a welcome, publicly-recorded phase of this court case (names, dates, words, everything) where the mysterious, elusive logic of why the two administrators decided to zero-in on this teacher to the point of dismissal will hopefully come to light. So far, the only logical (and acceptable) explanation would be that she was “a horrendously unfit teacher”. The judge has weighed the documentation for and against this claim already and has attempted to suggest a settlement based on it, to no avail.

Perhaps the teacher has another explanation of how this problem came to be, which she will gladly offer in her testimony. Good thing, she also kept the documentation of this from 2006.

The two administrators, until their testimonies in January 2010, will surely be rehearsing in front of the mirror; corroborating stories at closed-door meetings at school; and being extra-good Christians in case God is watching them.

And He always is, isn’t He?

Next Court Date

次の開廷は：
The next court date is at 15:30 on Sept, 15 2009, at Kasumigaseki Station (Chiyoda Line and Marunouchi Line); Exit A1; ROOM NUMBER: 13th floor, jyuukyuubu “19 bu”　or “１９部”

The teacher’s side will meet with the school side to discuss agreement upon the judge’s recommendation, or not. Details will be meted out. If any of the parties ultimately refuse the settlement conditions at this point, the lawsuit shall continue on through to next year–likely February 2010. Testimonies will be given.

Furthermore, depending on the final judgment in February 2010, either party may choose to appeal to a higher court, which would carry the proceedings on for another year or so.

The teacher in any event, as in the past, is prepared to do what needs to be done.

The Judge Makes a Recommendation

At the beginning of August 2009, after about 9 months of court hearings, the teacher and the school’s sides have basically submitted all documents in terms of evidence.

Upcoming is the testimonies, which will likely reiterate each side’s points.

So, the judge has stepped in to make a recommendation based on the evidence so far. Judges tend to do this when it is foreseeable that the case is headed in a certain direction, in order to save everyone’s time. It a recommendation that the teacher finds quite interesting.

Once the two sides meet to discuss agreeing to this or not, an update, perhaps with more detail, will be posted.

July 2 Update:

The teacher has submitted a petition by 32 families, report cards written by all 51 of her students, over 2 years, emails and letters written by others which support what the teacher claims; as well, school-issued memos that support the teacher’s practices.

The school has submitted their list of witnesses for the testimony phase that will come later this year. The witnesses are 2 administrators.

The teacher will submit her list by September 4th.

The judge suggested that the teacher’s housing contract be made between her and the owner. St. Mary’s lawyer refused this suggestion saying that it that it was impossible (?) and insisted that she pays the school directly. Though, the teacher has always paid the owner directly. Since the teacher’s housing is tied to the job, there is some question as what to do before knowing the outcome of the employment case.

The next meeting is at 16:45 on July 28th in Kasumigaseki regarding the housing issue. And September 4th regarding the employment issue.

May 28 の開廷 Update:

The school still has not submitted any evidence to justify the teacher’s dismissal. Her lawyer has submitted another request asking for evidence of the unfair dismissal.

学校側はまだ先生の解雇の証拠を堤出しませんでした。先生の弁護士さんは学校にも一度不当解雇の証拠を頼みました。

次のアップデトは, 次の開廷の後で：

７月　２日　１１：００午前　霞ヶ関で。

The next court date and update will be on July 2, 2009. The court session is at 11am in Kasumigaseki.

次のアップデートは６月６日です：

取りあえず：

本件の背景：
原告である女性教師はSt.Mary’sで勤務を開始から二ヶ月目～六ヶ月目の４ヶ月間、二人の管理職にあたる人間よりパワーハラスメントを受けていた。
学校側がハラスメント及び’いじめ’のような行為があったことを認識する前に、教師は本件を東京都へ報告した。
その後、学校側は女性教師が学校でのハラスメントを公に発表したことに対する制裁として女性教師を解雇することを決定した。
現在、この女性教師は法廷においてこの問題を追及している。

本サイトはSt.Mary’sと学校が解雇した女性教師間で争われている裁判の公判の全ての日程を紹介しています（下記のマップをご覧下さい）。東京地裁において解雇が不当であったことを女性教師が主張しています。
是非傍聴にいらして下さい！

April 23rd’s Court Hearing Review

Today, as previously promised, the school served papers to the teacher to sue her for living in her apartment.

At the court, the lawyers discussed the new possible case and decided to wait for decisions on either side to see if it should become a case at all.

The teacher lives in an apartment guaranteed by the school, she believed. She continues to pays rent, as she always has, every month by automatic bank deduction.

The school had decided to take over the rent payments a few months ago, on its own accord suddenly, but the teacher also continued to pay rent. Now, the school is suing the teacher saying that she owes the school money for rent. It is an interesting tactic because by taking over the rent in Setagaya-ku for 7 months, makes this a large sum of money.

The teacher will prove she willfully pays the rent, as she always has, every month, to the only party she owes money to: the owner.

In addition, she is preparing evidence to rebut the assertions of the last court date submitted by the school. (For the real case)

The teacher had expected that the school would do such a thing (sue her). 2 court dates ago, the school’s lawyer (there are 3, but they always send a young man), did his best “mean face” toward the teacher and told the judge in translation, that they were going to sue her for “squatting in their villa”.

Since the teacher started working at the school, she was told, in writing that she was the tenant. And as such, she has paid the rent, all the key money etc. But, for the school, they have always held the tenant position (on the official Japanese original of the contract, which they never show the teachers). By tying a teacher’s job to his/her home, it is easy to fire them and make them leave Japan without a struggle.

It is convenient to make the teacher lose her home because logically, this will make her life difficult and discourage her enough to leave Japan. The teacher may feel scared at the prospect of being sued and owing a lot of money that she probably does not have. As well, she may not have any friends who might be her guarantor for her next apartment. She would be homeless. All this would also possibly make her give up! In this way, it makes it possible for St. Mary’s to “win” this case, since their evidence otherwise is, well…

What will the teacher ever do?

The next court date is on May 28th, a Thursday, at 3:00pm at the same place.

Correction: 05/10/08 Japanese Leaflet: 聖マリア学園で教えている教員の雇用は大変不安定な状態です！

今年度、３１家族がまとまり、３年生のクラス担任ジュヌビーブ・トラン先生の突然の解雇処分を再検討してもらうための嘆願書をセントメリーズ校に対して提出しました。これは、現在のトラン先生が担任する児童の保護者全員（２４家族）と、その他の７家族の声です。

「…私たちは、トラン先生の私たちの子供たちへの教育におけるあらゆる取り組みに大変満足しています。・・・（この嘆願書に対しての）学校側からの速やかな返答をいただけること願います。」—　３Tクラス保護者一同より
しかし、このような不公平または明確な理由のない教師の解雇において、学校側から返答がされることは一切ありませんでした。 以下が学校側の現状です。

 非雇用者である職員の解雇、または契約の非継続という決断が下されるにあたり、事前に異議を申し立てるプロセスが存在しません。
 トラン先生に関して、書面で残された通常の評価記録が存在しません。
 速やかかつ客観的な解雇理由が提示されていません。
 学校の雇用規則の中で示されている契約継続のための４つの基準のいずれかにトラン先生が違反しているという測定可能、または客観適な根拠が存在しません。
 トラン先生に対しての何らかの警告、罰則などが過去に行使されたという履歴はありません。
 今回のトラン先生の件は、東京都労働監督庁が発行するパワーハラスメントに関する注意事項にのっとったものではありません。
 トラン先生が担任する生徒たちの優秀なテスト成績も考慮されていません。
 「（トラン先生の件について）これ以上の議論および交渉は行いません。」これが、２００８年１月の学校側の返答です。
 法定の失業保険も存在しません。
 法定の年金制度も存在しません。

更に 学校側は、能力があり良い変革をもたらす教師をセントメリーズ校に残したい、と考えている授業料を支払う顧客でもある保護者の妥当な要求を無視し続けています。それは何故でしょう？もし、学校側の理由が然るべき根拠に基づいているのではれば、説明ができるはずだと考えます。

１０００人もの学生を指導する「もの言わぬ独裁制」が存在するのは何故なのでしょう？
セントメリーズの管理者は保護者の声に耳を傾けるべきです！

March 16th Court Date, a review:

Since the last meeting, the school’s side has been asked to furnish evidence that pertains to the teacher deserving to be fired.

So far, the school had used the following as defense:
- a 1-year contract (the judge had said that despite the temporary-seeming nature of the contract, reasons for non-renewal still had to be given; also the teacher’s lawyer showed that the past 40 teachers who had left the school, left for reasons nothing to do with the 1-year contract, but rather for retirement or leaving of their own accord–not because 1 year “was up”)

- 3 documents that were proficiency charts (2) and a list that the teacher had requested herself (1) (the judge had said that since specific information about the teacher was not written on these documents–such as her name–more evidence would need to be given)

This time, the school submitted the original arguments that the elementary assistant principal had submitted during collective bargaining with the teacher’s union in February 2008. These have been translated into Japanese. Originally, in English, they had included comments such as the following:

- during a math lesson, when the teacher was explaining something about a math test, some students looked at the math test and not at her
- the teacher organized events for her class without including the 50-60 students in the other 3rd grade classes

So, it stands to question, had the school waited to submit this “meat” of their argument because it was most effective? Or had the school been reluctant to submit this because it contained assertions that would be hard to prove?

Assertions by the school that the teacher did these things, is not the same as objective evidence that she was a lacking teacher. (One can assert that the world is flat, but can one prove it?)

The teacher, of course, will submit a rebuttal of every point, categorically. She will let the judge know that however these accusations may sound, they were originally given to her in Feb. 2008, 14-17 months after all of the alleged things observed, happened. She had never been told or written to officially, that any of these points were a problem at the time they supposedly happened. No disciplinary action on any of the points had ever been taken in any way.

The next hearing is at the same place, at 11am on April 23, a Thursday.