ご署名いただいた皆さまへ
2026年7月30日、当組合の組合員である兼務教員2名は、学校法人桜丘を被告として、解雇の無効と教員としての地位確認を求め、東京地方裁判所に提訴しました。学校法人桜丘は、2026年3月、無期労働契約に転換していた2名について、「65歳定年」を理由に雇用を終了させました。
私たちは、この雇用終了には、次の三つの重大な問題があると考えています。
1．無期転換時、「65歳定年」は示されていませんでした
原告2名は2022年に無期転換を申し込み、2023年4月から無期労働契約に転換しました。法人が発行した「無期転換申込受理通知書」には、定年についての記載も説明もありませんでした。ところが、無期転換後の2024年度になって、「労働条件通知書兼雇用契約書」に突然「65歳定年」と記載されました。原告2名は、この契約書に署名・押印していません。また、私たちは、無期転換した兼務教員に適用される就業規則は整備されていないと考えています。既存の就業規則は、対象となる教職員を「常時勤務する専任の教職員」と定め、非専任教職員については「別に定める」としています。一方、非常勤講師服務規程は契約期間を「1年」と定めており、無期転換した教員への適用関係が明らかではありません。これらの規則は長期間周知されておらず、法人は就業規則の周知をめぐって労働基準監督署から是正勧告を受けています。
2．65歳を超えて働く教員がいる一方で、2名の雇用が終了されました
法人が東京都労働委員会に提出した資料には、65歳を超えて勤務する教員が複数記載されており、最年長は73歳でした。その一方で、無期転換した当組合の組合員2名には「65歳定年」が適用され、雇用が終了されました。さらに法人は、原告2名が担当していた教科の教員を新たに募集しています。
3．組合活動との関連が強く疑われます
2名は、専任教員との待遇格差の是正を求める組合活動を続けてきました。現在、法人を相手として、東京都労働委員会での不当労働行為救済申立てと、東京地方裁判所での待遇格差をめぐる訴訟が係属しています。これらの手続が続いている最中に、組合員2名の雇用終了が強行されました。私たちは、この雇用終了が、組合活動を理由とする報復的な不利益取扱いではないかと強く疑っています。
◇私たちが求めること
学校法人桜丘に対し、次の対応を求めます。
1．組合員2名に対する雇用終了を撤回し、教員としての地位を回復すること
2．組合活動を理由とする不利益取扱いを行わないこと
3．非正規教員の雇用の安定と待遇改善に取り組むこと
無期転換制度は、長年働いてきた労働者の雇用を安定させるための制度です。無期転換後になって突然定年を示し、雇用を終了させることが許されれば、制度の意味そのものが失われかねません。これは、教員2名だけの問題ではありません。非正規教員に支えられている日本の教育現場全体に関わる問題です。教員の雇用の安定は、それだけで教育の質を保証するものではありません。しかし、教員が安心して経験を蓄積し、専門性を高め、継続的な教育を行うための重要な基盤です。
これまでご署名くださった皆さまに、改めて心より御礼申し上げます。
引き続き本件を見守っていただくとともに、署名ページを周囲の方々へ共有していただけましたら幸いです。
＝＝＝
東京地裁への提訴にあたって行った記者会見を、弁護士.JPさんに報じて頂いています。こちらもぜひご一読ください。
https://www.ben54.jp/news/3766
＝＝＝
To all who have signed
On July 30, 2026, two concurrently appointed teachers who are members of our union filed suit against the School Corporation Sakuragaoka in the Tokyo District Court, seeking a declaration that their dismissal is invalid and a confirmation of their status as teachers. In March 2026, the School Corporation Sakuragaoka terminated the employment of the two teachers—who had converted to indefinite-term employment contracts—on the grounds of a "mandatory retirement age of 65."
We believe that this termination of employment involves the following three serious problems.
1. At the time of conversion to indefinite-term employment, no "mandatory retirement age of 65" was presented
The two plaintiffs applied for conversion to indefinite-term employment in 2022 and, from April 2023, converted to indefinite-term employment contracts. The "Notice of Acceptance of Application for Conversion to Indefinite-Term Employment" issued by the corporation contained no mention or explanation of any mandatory retirement age. Yet, after the conversion, in the 2024 fiscal year, a "Notice of Working Conditions and Employment Contract" suddenly stated a "mandatory retirement age of 65." The two plaintiffs have not signed or affixed their seals to this contract.
Furthermore, we believe that the work rules applicable to concurrently appointed teachers who have converted to indefinite-term employment have not been established. The existing work rules define the covered staff as "full-time teaching staff in regular service," and provide that non-full-time teaching staff shall be "governed separately." Meanwhile, the Service Regulations for Part-Time Instructors set the contract term at "one year," and their applicability to teachers who have converted to indefinite-term employment is unclear. These rules were not made known to employees over a long period, and the corporation has received a corrective recommendation from the Labour Standards Inspection Office concerning the disclosure of its work rules.
2. While there are teachers working beyond the age of 65, the employment of these two was terminated
Materials submitted by the corporation to the Tokyo Metropolitan Labor Relations Commission list multiple teachers working beyond the age of 65, the oldest being 73. Nevertheless, the "mandatory retirement age of 65" was applied to our union's two members who had converted to indefinite-term employment, and their employment was terminated. Moreover, the corporation is newly recruiting teachers for the subjects that the two plaintiffs had taught.
3. A connection to union activities is strongly suspected
The two members have continued union activities seeking to correct the disparity in treatment compared with full-time teachers. Currently, against the corporation, an unfair labor practice relief petition before the Tokyo Metropolitan Labor Relations Commission and a lawsuit before the Tokyo District Court concerning the disparity in treatment are pending. It was in the midst of these proceedings that the termination of the two union members' employment was forced through. We strongly suspect that this termination of employment may constitute retaliatory adverse treatment on the grounds of union activities.
◇What we are asking for
We call on the School Corporation Sakuragaoka to take the following actions:
To withdraw the termination of employment of the two union members and restore their status as teachers;
To refrain from any adverse treatment on the grounds of union activities;
To work toward the stability of employment and the improvement of treatment for non-regular teachers.
The indefinite-term conversion system is a system designed to stabilize the employment of workers who have worked for many years. If it were permitted to suddenly present a mandatory retirement age after conversion to indefinite-term employment and thereby terminate employment, the very meaning of the system would risk being lost. This is not a problem for these two teachers alone. It is a problem that concerns the whole of Japan's educational field, which is supported by non-regular teachers. The stability of teachers' employment does not, by itself, guarantee the quality of education. It is, however, an important foundation that allows teachers to accumulate experience with peace of mind, to deepen their expertise, and to provide continuous education.
We once again extend our heartfelt thanks to all of you who have signed thus far. We would be grateful if you would continue to watch over this matter and share the petition page with those around you.
＝＝＝
The press conference held in connection with the filing before the Tokyo District Court has been reported by Bengoshi.JP. Please do take a look.
https://www.ben54.jp/news/3766
＝＝＝