【ＦＡＱ】地位確認の提訴について寄せられたご質問にお答えします
２０２６（令和８）年７月３０日の提訴と、その後の報道を受け、無期転換や６５歳定年、原告らの勤務状況について、さまざまなご意見・ご質問をいただいております。以下は、個々のコメントに反論するものではなく、繰り返し寄せられた疑問を整理し、事実に基づいて、原告・組合側の考えを説明するものです。
なお、本件は東京地方裁判所および東京都労働委員会で係属中の事案です。以下は現時点における原告・組合側の主張であり、最終的な法的判断は裁判所・労働委員会に委ねられます。個人的な思い込みや先入観に基づく評価ではなく、労働契約、就業規則、実際の運用を踏まえてご覧いただければ幸いです。
１．争点
Ｑ１．この裁判では、何が問われているのですか？
私たちは、６５歳定年制度そのものを否定しているわけではありません。争点は、原告２名に６５歳定年を適用できる契約上・就業規則上の根拠があったのか、という点です。
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となりました。ところが、「６５歳定年」という記載が初めて示されたのは、無期転換後の２０２４年度の契約書でした。原告２名は、その契約書に署名・押印していません。
また、学校法人の就業規則は非常勤講師を適用対象外としており、非常勤講師に適用される別の服務規定は、１年間の有期労働契約を前提とする内容です。そこで、無期転換した原告らに６５歳定年を適用する契約上・就業規則上の根拠があったのかについて、司法の判断を求めています。
Ｑ２．無期労働契約とは、一生雇い続ける契約ですか？
違います。無期労働契約とは、契約期間の満了日があらかじめ定められていない契約です。「一切退職させられない」「生涯雇用が保障される」という意味ではありません。
有効な定年制度、本人の退職、労使の合意、または客観的に合理的な理由があり、社会通念上相当と認められる解雇などによって、労働契約が終了することはあります。ただし、無期転換後は、従来のように「１年間の契約期間が満了したので次年度は更新しない」という方法で雇用を終了させることはできません。契約を終了させるための法的な根拠が必要になります。
Ｑ３．「非常勤講師なら１年契約で、更新されなかっただけ」ではありませんか？
原告２名も、無期転換前は１年間の有期労働契約を更新していました。しかし、無期転換権を行使したことにより、２０２３年４月からは契約期間の定めがない労働契約となっています。
無期転換ルールは、「非常勤講師」「パート」「契約社員」などの名称にかかわらず適用されます。したがって、本件は契約が更新されなかったということが問題なのではなく、原告２名が、期間の定めのない無期労働契約であるにもかかわらず、「６５歳定年」を理由に雇用を終了させられた、ということが問題なのです。
２．６５歳定年の根拠
Ｑ４．学校の就業規則に６５歳定年が書かれているなら、当然に適用されるのではありませんか？
学校法人の就業規則には、６５歳定年の規定があります。しかし、同就業規則は非常勤講師を適用対象外とし、非専任の教職員については別に定める旨を規定しています。
非常勤講師に適用されるという「非常勤講師服務規定」は、契約期間を１年とする内容で、最新の施行日は２００４年４月１日です。無期転換ルールが施行された２０１３年４月１日より９年前の規定であり、無期転換した非常勤講師を想定した内容にはなっていません。しかも、原告らが無期労働契約に転換した後も、これらの規程が改正されることはなく、就業規則も変更されないまま、２０２４年度の個別契約書に初めて「定年（６５歳）」と記載されました。原告らは、この契約書に署名・押印していません。そのため、専任教職員を対象とした就業規則にある６５歳定年を、無期転換した非常勤講師に適用できるのかが争点となります。
さらに、理事長兼校長は２０２４年３月、無期転換した講師の就業規則について「今までそういうのがまったくない状態だった」と述べ、新たに規則を作ると説明しました。しかし、その後も無期転換者向けの就業規則は作成されませんでした。これらの事情から、私たちは、原告らに適用される６５歳定年の根拠規定は存在しないと考えています。
私たちは、無期転換後の非常勤講師に適用する就業規則等が事前に整備されないまま、あとから６５歳定年が示されたことが、本件紛争の大きな背景にあると考えています。
なお、厚生労働省も、定年など、有期契約労働者には通常定められていない労働条件を無期転換後に適用する必要がある場合には、適切に設定した上で、あらかじめ明確化しておく必要があるとしています（厚生労働省「無期転換ルールハンドブック」2021）。
Ｑ５．２０２４年度の契約書に「６５歳定年」と書かれていたなら、それで有効ではありませんか？
契約書を提示しただけで、直ちに労働者がその内容に合意したことにはなりません。原告２名は、「６５歳定年」と記載された２０２４年度の契約書に署名・押印していません。
また、その記載が示されたのは、すでに無期労働契約に転換した後でした。就業規則などによって労働条件が有効に設定・変更される場合もありますが、その場合には、規則の適用対象、周知の有無、変更の合理性などが問題になります。私たちは、無期転換後に初めて示された６５歳定年に合意しておらず、他に有効な根拠もないと考えています。
Ｑ６．世間一般で６５歳定年が多いなら、契約書に書かれていなくても適用されるのではありませんか？
「６５歳定年が社会一般で広く採用されていること」と、「特定の労働者との契約に６５歳定年を適用できること」は別の問題です。
定年は、労働契約の終了に直結する重要な労働条件です。本件で問われているのは、６５歳定年が一般的かどうかではなく、原告２名に適用される契約、就業規則その他の有効な根拠が存在したかどうかです。
３．能力・人事判断
Ｑ７．学校に必要がないと判断されたため、雇用を終了されたのではありませんか？
法人が原告らに示した雇用終了の理由は、能力不足や勤務成績ではなく、あくまで「６５歳定年」です。したがって原告らは、能力や成績を理由として解雇されたわけではありません。
原告らは、約２０年にわたり桜丘中学校・高等学校で勤務してきました。その間、能力不足を理由とする指導や処分、注意を受けたことは一度もありませんでした。また、無期転換前には、１年間の有期労働契約が長年にわたり更新されてきました。
本件でまず問われるのは、法人が実際に示した雇用終了理由である「６５歳定年」を、原告らに適用できる契約上・就業規則上の有効な根拠が存在したのかという点です。私たちは、そのような根拠は存在しないと主張しています。
仮に能力不足や勤務不良を理由として無期労働契約を終了させるのであれば、それは「６５歳定年」とは別の問題であり、具体的な事実、評価の客観性、これまでの指導の経緯などを踏まえて、解雇に客観的に合理的な理由があり、社会通念上相当と認められるかが問われることになります。しかし、法人から原告らに対して、そのような理由によって雇用を終了させるとの説明はなされていません。
Ｑ８．７３歳の講師が勤務できたのは、その人が優秀で、学校とうまく関係を築いていたからではありませんか？
そのような人事評価が行われたことを示す事実は確認されていません。そもそも、法人が原告らに示した雇用終了の理由は、能力や勤務成績ではなく「６５歳定年」でした（Ｑ７参照）。「優秀だから残れた」「うまくやれなかったから終了された」という見方は、法人自身が示した理由とは異なる、第三者による推測に過ぎません。
また、法人が東京都労働委員会に自ら提出した資料には、６５歳を超えて勤務していた講師が複数記載され、７３歳の講師も勤務していました。少なくとも、法人において６５歳到達が例外なく勤務終了を意味するものとして運用されていたわけではありません。
その一方で、原告２名については「６５歳定年」を理由として雇用が終了されました。私たちは、このような実際の運用も踏まえ、原告らに６５歳定年を適用する契約上・就業規則上の有効な根拠が本当に存在したのかを問うています。
「優秀か」「うまくやっていたか」という主観的な評価によって、後から定年の適用の有無が決まるのであれば、定年制度としての一貫性が問われることになります。本件で問題となっているのは、特定の個人が学校に気に入られていたかどうかではなく、原告らの無期労働契約を６５歳で終了させる有効な法的根拠があったのか、という点です。
Ｑ９．私立学校には、必要な教員を残し、不要な教員との契約を終了させる自由があるのではありませんか？
学校には、新たに教職員を採用する一定の裁量があります。しかし、新規採用の裁量と、すでに成立している無期労働契約を一方的に終了させることは同義ではありません。
学校法人の経営する私立学校にも労働法が適用されます。能力や勤務態度を理由として無期労働契約を終了させる場合には、具体的な根拠と適正な手続が必要です。本件では、法人が示した労働契約終了の理由である「６５歳定年」に、原告らとの関係で有効な根拠があったのかが争点となっています。
Ｑ１０．高齢の教員より、若い教員に道を譲るべきではありませんか？
若手教員の採用や育成は重要です。しかし、若手の採用と、すでに成立している労働契約を守ることは両立すると考えています。
世代交代を進めるのであれば、あらかじめ明確で公平な制度を設け、労働者に説明し、適正な手続を経て運用する必要があります。本件は、若者と高齢者のどちらを優先するかという問題ではありません。繰り返しになりますが、無期転換後に示された定年を、原告らに適用できるのかということが問題なのです。
Ｑ１１．６５歳なら年金を受け取れるのだから、退職してもよいのではありませんか？
年金を受給できるかどうかと、労働契約が有効に存続しているかどうかは別の問題です。年金受給年齢に達したことだけで、使用者が当然に労働契約を終了できるわけではありません。また、生活のために働くのか、仕事への意欲や使命感から働くのかによって、契約の法的効力が変わるわけでもありません。本件で判断されるべきなのは、法人に雇用を終了させる法的根拠があったかどうかという点です。
４．提訴・組合活動・請求内容
Ｑ１２．なぜ、教員として働き続けることを求めるのですか？
原告２名は長年にわたり、生徒の教育に携わってきました。今回求めているのは、労働契約終了が無効であることを前提に、無期労働契約上の地位を確認することです。
これは原告ら個人の就労の問題であると同時に、無期転換後の労働条件を使用者がどのように定め、運用できるのかという制度上の問題でもあります。なお、原告らは「死ぬまで無条件で働き続ける権利」を求めているわけではありません。
Ｑ１３．組合活動をしていたことが、雇用終了と関係していると主張しているのですか？
原告らと組合は、６５歳定年の適用が、組合活動を理由とする不利益取扱いに当たるのではないかと疑っています。原告らは２０２２年８月に組合を結成し、専任教員との待遇格差の是正などを求めて活動してきました。６５歳定年が初めて記載されたのは、２０２４年３月に提示された２０２４年度の契約書です。２０２５年２月には東京都労働委員会に不当労働行為救済を申し立て、その審理が続く中で、法人は２０２６年３月末に原告２名を定年退職扱いとしました。
ただし、当組合への不当労働行為に当たるかどうかは東京都労働委員会で審理中です。地位確認等請求事件の中心的な争点は、原告らに６５歳定年を適用する法的根拠があったかどうかです。
Ｑ１４．話し合いではなく、なぜ裁判を起こしたのですか？
原告らと組合は、突然裁判を起こしたわけではありません。６５歳定年についても法人との交渉を重ね、２０２５年２月からは東京都労働委員会の救済手続を通じて解決を求めてきました。
しかし、法人は２０２６年３月末に原告らに６５歳定年が適用されるとして、退職扱いとしました。労働契約が現在も継続しているかどうかについて、法的拘束力のある判断を得るため、２０２６年７月３０日に東京地方裁判所へ地位確認等請求訴訟を提起したのです。
Ｑ１５．なぜ、地位確認だけでなく賃金の支払いも請求しているのですか？
労働契約の終了が無効であれば、法律上はその労働契約は継続していたことになります。その場合、その期間に支払われるはずだった賃金を請求することになります。
本件では、一方的に定年退職扱いとされた２０２６年４月以降について、それまで実際に支給されていた月給、夏季・冬季賞与、期末手当の支払いを求めています。
これに加えて、基本給、夏季・冬季賞与、期末手当、固定残業代、住宅手当、勤続手当、家族手当について、専任教員との待遇差が不合理であると考え、その差額についても請求しています。
原告らは、専任教員への職種変更を求めているわけではありません。各待遇差に合理的な理由があるのかについて、賃金項目ごとに裁判所の判断を求めています。私たちは、これらの待遇差には合理的な理由がなく、原告らが請求する差額は支払われるべきものであると考えています。提出した主張と証拠に基づき、裁判所が公正な判断を示すものと信じています。
最後に
本件について、さまざまなご意見があることは承知しています。私たちは、個々のコメントに応酬するのではなく、年齢や雇用形態、個人の能力についての推測に左右されず、労働契約、就業規則、実際の運用、そして確認できる事実に基づいて説明することが重要だと考えています。
本件は、原告２名の個別の雇用問題であると同時に、有期労働契約から無期労働契約に転換した労働者について、その後の労働条件を使用者がどのような根拠と手続によって定めることができるのかという問題でもあります。
無期転換制度は、有期労働契約が反復更新されてきた労働者について、一定の要件のもとで期間の定めのない労働契約への転換を認めた制度です。厚生労働省も、定年など、有期契約労働者には通常定められていない労働条件を適用する必要がある場合には、適切に設定した上で、あらかじめ明確化しておく必要があるとしています（厚生労働省「無期転換ルールハンドブック」2021）。
提訴を機に、多くの方からご意見をいただいています。「非常勤だから仕方がない」「学校に必要とされなかったのだろう」「能力があれば残れたはずだ」といった声もあります。しかし、雇用契約が有効に終了したかどうかは、そのような第三者の推測によって決まるものではありません。契約内容、適用される就業規則、労使間の合意、実際の運用などの事実に基づいて判断されるべき問題です。
私たちは、異なる意見があるからこそ、確認できる事実を一つずつ示し、丁寧に説明していく必要があると考えています。そして、この問題について社会的な議論が生まれること自体にも意味があると考えています。
最終的には、裁判所および東京都労働委員会にて判断されます。今後も、その経過について可能な範囲で丁寧にお知らせしてまいります。
引き続きご理解とご支援を、どうぞよろしくお願いいたします。
＿＿＿
FAQ: Our Responses to Questions Regarding the Lawsuit Seeking Confirmation of Employment Status
Following the filing of the lawsuit on July 30, 2026, and the subsequent media coverage, we have received a wide range of comments and questions regarding conversion to indefinite-term employment, the mandatory retirement age of 65, and the Plaintiffs’ employment history and working conditions.
The purpose of this FAQ is not to respond to individual comments. Rather, we have compiled the questions that have been raised repeatedly and set out the views of the Plaintiffs and the labor union based on the facts.
This matter is currently pending before the Tokyo District Court and the Tokyo Metropolitan Labor Relations Commission. The explanations below represent the current position of the Plaintiffs and the union. The final legal determinations will be made by the Court and the Labor Relations Commission. We hope that readers will consider this case on the basis of the employment contracts, work rules, and actual employment practices, rather than assumptions or preconceived views about the individuals involved.
1. The Issues in Dispute
Q1. What exactly is being contested in this lawsuit?
We are not challenging the concept of a mandatory retirement age of 65 itself. The issue is whether there was a valid contractual or work-rule basis for applying a mandatory retirement age of 65 to the two Plaintiffs.
The two Plaintiffs applied for conversion to indefinite-term employment in 2022 and became employees under indefinite-term employment contracts in April 2023. However, the first time a “mandatory retirement age of 65” appeared in documents presented to them was in the employment contracts for the 2024 academic year—after they had already converted to indefinite-term employment. Neither Plaintiff signed or affixed their seal to those contracts.
In addition, the school corporation’s general work rules expressly exclude part-time lecturers from their scope of application, while the separate rules said to apply to part-time lecturers presuppose one-year fixed-term employment contracts.
We are therefore asking the Court to determine whether there was any valid contractual or work-rule basis for applying the mandatory retirement age of 65 to the Plaintiffs after their conversion to indefinite-term employment.
Q2. Does an indefinite-term employment contract mean that an employer must employ someone for life?
No. An indefinite-term employment contract simply means that the contract has no predetermined expiration date. It does not mean that an employee can never be required to leave employment or that lifetime employment is guaranteed.
An indefinite-term employment contract may end through a valid mandatory retirement system, resignation by the employee, agreement between the parties, or dismissal where there are objectively reasonable grounds and the dismissal is considered socially acceptable.
However, once an employee has converted to an indefinite-term contract, the employer can no longer simply say, “Your one-year contract has expired, so we will not renew it next year.” A legally valid basis is required to terminate the employment relationship.
Q3. Aren’t part-time lecturers simply employed on one-year contracts that may not be renewed?
Before conversion to indefinite-term employment, the two Plaintiffs did indeed work under successive one-year fixed-term contracts.
However, by exercising their statutory right to convert to indefinite-term employment, their contracts became indefinite-term employment contracts as of April 2023.
Japan’s indefinite-term conversion rule applies regardless of labels such as “part-time lecturer,” “part-time employee,” or “contract employee.”
The issue in this case is therefore not that a fixed-term contract was simply not renewed. The issue is that the Plaintiffs’ employment was terminated on the basis of a “mandatory retirement age of 65,” even though they were already employed under indefinite-term contracts.
2. The Basis for the Mandatory Retirement Age of 65
Q4. If the school’s work rules provide for a mandatory retirement age of 65, doesn’t that automatically apply?
The school corporation’s general work rules do contain a provision establishing a mandatory retirement age of 65. However, those work rules exclude part-time lecturers from their scope and state that separate provisions shall apply to non-full-time teaching staff.
The document said to apply to part-time lecturers, entitled the “Rules Governing Part-Time Lecturers,” provides that their employment contracts are for a period of one year. Its most recent effective date is April 1, 2004—nine years before Japan’s indefinite-term conversion rule came into force on April 1, 2013. It was therefore not drafted with indefinitely employed part-time lecturers in mind.
Moreover, even after the Plaintiffs converted to indefinite-term employment, these rules were not revised and the general work rules were not amended. Instead, the phrase “mandatory retirement age: 65” appeared for the first time in the individual employment contracts presented for the 2024 academic year. The Plaintiffs did not sign or affix their seals to those contracts.
Accordingly, one of the central issues is whether the mandatory retirement provision contained in work rules designed for full-time teaching staff can validly be applied to part-time lecturers who have converted to indefinite-term employment.
Furthermore, in March 2024, the Chair of the Board of Trustees, who also serves as Principal, stated regarding work rules for lecturers who had converted to indefinite-term employment that “until now, there had been absolutely nothing like that in place,” and explained that new rules would be created. However, no work rules specifically applicable to indefinite-term lecturers were subsequently established.
In light of these circumstances, we take the position that no valid rule existed establishing a mandatory retirement age of 65 applicable to the Plaintiffs.
We believe that a major cause of this dispute is that no work rules or equivalent provisions governing indefinitely employed part-time lecturers were put in place in advance, and that the mandatory retirement age of 65 was introduced only afterward.
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has also stated that where employment conditions not ordinarily applicable to fixed-term employees—such as a mandatory retirement age—are to apply following conversion to indefinite-term employment, those conditions must be appropriately established and clarified in advance.
(Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, “Handbook on the Indefinite-Term Conversion Rule,” 2021)
Q5. If the 2024 employment contract stated “mandatory retirement age: 65,” wouldn’t that make it valid?
Simply presenting a contract does not automatically mean that the employee has agreed to its terms. Neither Plaintiff signed or affixed their seal to the 2024 employment contract containing the “mandatory retirement age of 65” provision.
Moreover, that provision was presented only after the Plaintiffs had already converted to indefinite-term employment.
Employment conditions can in some circumstances be validly established or changed through work rules or other means. However, questions then arise regarding matters such as whether the rules apply to the employees concerned, whether they were properly made known to employees, and whether any changes were reasonable.
Our position is that the Plaintiffs did not agree to a mandatory retirement age of 65 introduced only after their conversion to indefinite-term employment, and that no other valid legal basis existed for applying it to them.
Q6. If retirement at 65 is common in society, wouldn’t it apply even if it was not written into the contract?
The fact that a mandatory retirement age of 65 is widely used in society is separate from the question of whether it can lawfully be applied to a particular employee.
A mandatory retirement age is a significant employment condition because it directly determines when an employment relationship ends.
The question in this case is therefore not whether retirement at 65 is common in general, but whether there was a valid contractual, work-rule, or other legal basis for applying it to these two Plaintiffs.
3. Ability and Personnel Decisions
Q7. Weren’t the Plaintiffs’ jobs terminated because the school decided that it no longer needed them?
The reason given by the school corporation for terminating the Plaintiffs’ employment was not poor performance, lack of ability, or inadequate work. The stated reason was specifically the “mandatory retirement age of 65.”
The Plaintiffs were therefore not dismissed on grounds of ability or performance.
They had worked at Sakuragaoka Junior and Senior High School for approximately 20 years. During that time, neither Plaintiff was ever subject to disciplinary action, warning, or corrective instruction on the ground of inadequate ability. Before converting to indefinite-term employment, their one-year contracts had also been renewed repeatedly over many years.
The first question in this case is whether there was a valid contractual or work-rule basis for applying the “mandatory retirement age of 65”—the reason actually given by the school corporation—to the Plaintiffs. We contend that no such valid basis existed.
If the school corporation were instead to seek to terminate an indefinite-term employment contract on grounds such as poor performance or misconduct, that would raise a different legal issue. The question would then be whether, in light of the specific facts, the objectivity of the evaluation, and the history of any prior guidance or corrective measures, there were objectively reasonable grounds for dismissal and whether the dismissal was socially acceptable.
However, the school corporation never informed the Plaintiffs that their employment was being terminated for any such reason.
Q8. Wasn’t the 73-year-old lecturer allowed to continue working because that person was particularly capable or had maintained a good relationship with the school?
We are not aware of any facts showing that such a personnel evaluation was made.
More importantly, the reason given by the school corporation for terminating the Plaintiffs’ employment was not their ability or performance, but the “mandatory retirement age of 65” (see Q7).
The suggestion that another lecturer was retained because that person was “more capable,” while the Plaintiffs were terminated because they had “failed to maintain a good relationship with the school,” is a third party’s speculation and differs from the reason actually given by the school corporation.
Documents submitted by the school corporation itself to the Tokyo Metropolitan Labor Relations Commission also show that multiple lecturers over the age of 65 continued working, including one lecturer aged 73.
At a minimum, this demonstrates that, in practice, reaching the age of 65 did not invariably result in termination of employment at the school corporation.
By contrast, the two Plaintiffs had their employment terminated specifically on the basis of the “mandatory retirement age of 65.”
Taking these actual employment practices into account, we are asking whether there truly was a valid contractual or work-rule basis for applying the mandatory retirement age of 65 to the Plaintiffs.
If the applicability of a mandatory retirement age can be determined after the fact on the basis of subjective judgments such as whether someone was “capable” or had “gotten along well with the school,” then the consistency of the retirement system itself becomes open to question.
The issue in this case is not whether a particular individual was personally favored by the school. It is whether there was a valid legal basis for terminating the Plaintiffs’ indefinite-term employment contracts when they reached the age of 65.
Q9. Doesn’t a private school have the freedom to retain teachers it needs and terminate those it does not?
Schools have a certain degree of discretion when hiring new faculty and staff.
However, discretion in making new hires is not the same thing as the right to unilaterally terminate an indefinite-term employment contract that is already in force.
Private schools operated by school corporations are also subject to labor law.
Where an employer seeks to terminate an indefinite-term employment relationship on grounds such as ability or work performance, concrete grounds and appropriate procedures are required.
In this case, the issue is whether the “mandatory retirement age of 65,” which was the reason actually given by the school corporation for terminating the Plaintiffs’ employment, had a valid legal basis as applied to them.
Q10. Shouldn’t older teachers step aside to make room for younger teachers?
Recruiting and developing younger teachers is important.
However, hiring younger teachers and honoring existing employment contracts are not mutually exclusive.
If an employer wishes to promote generational turnover, it should establish clear and fair rules in advance, explain them to employees, and apply them through proper procedures.
This case is not about choosing between younger and older workers. Again, the issue is whether a mandatory retirement age introduced after conversion to indefinite-term employment could validly be applied to the Plaintiffs.
Q11. If someone is already 65 and eligible to receive a pension, why not simply retire?
Whether a person is eligible to receive a pension and whether their employment contract remains legally valid are entirely separate questions.
Reaching pensionable age does not, by itself, give an employer the automatic right to terminate an employment contract.
Nor does the legal validity of the contract depend on whether someone works out of financial necessity or because of commitment to and motivation for their profession.
The question in this case is whether the school corporation had a valid legal basis for terminating the Plaintiffs’ employment.
4. The Lawsuit, Union Activity, and the Claims Being Sought
Q12. Why are the Plaintiffs seeking to continue working as teachers?
The two Plaintiffs have devoted many years to educating students.
What they are seeking in this lawsuit is confirmation that, because the termination of their employment was invalid, they continue to hold the status of employees under their indefinite-term employment contracts.
This is not only a question of the Plaintiffs’ own employment. It also raises the broader issue of how employers may establish and apply employment conditions after employees convert to indefinite-term contracts.
The Plaintiffs are not claiming a “right to work unconditionally until death.”
Q13. Are you claiming that the termination of employment was related to the Plaintiffs’ union activities?
The Plaintiffs and the union suspect that applying the mandatory retirement age of 65 may constitute disadvantageous treatment because of their union activities.
The Plaintiffs formed the union in August 2022 and have since campaigned for measures including the correction of disparities in working conditions between part-time lecturers and full-time teachers.
The mandatory retirement age of 65 first appeared in the employment contracts presented for the 2024 academic year in March 2024.
In February 2025, the union filed an unfair labor practice petition with the Tokyo Metropolitan Labor Relations Commission. While those proceedings were still ongoing, the school corporation treated the two Plaintiffs as having retired at the end of March 2026.
Whether these actions constitute an unfair labor practice against the union is currently under examination by the Tokyo Metropolitan Labor Relations Commission.
The central issue in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of employment status, however, is whether there was a valid legal basis for applying the mandatory retirement age of 65 to the Plaintiffs.
Q14. Why did you file a lawsuit instead of resolving the matter through discussions?
The Plaintiffs and the union did not suddenly resort to litigation.
They repeatedly negotiated with the school corporation over the mandatory retirement age of 65, and from February 2025 they also sought resolution through proceedings before the Tokyo Metropolitan Labor Relations Commission.
Nevertheless, at the end of March 2026, the school corporation treated the Plaintiffs as retired on the ground that the mandatory retirement age of 65 applied to them.
To obtain a legally binding determination as to whether their employment contracts remain in force, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court on July 30, 2026, seeking confirmation of their employment status and related relief.
Q15. Why are the Plaintiffs seeking payment of wages in addition to confirmation of their employment status?
If the termination of employment was invalid, then legally the employment relationship continued throughout the period in question.
In that event, the employees are entitled to claim the wages that should have been paid during that period.
In this case, for the period beginning in April 2026, when the Plaintiffs were unilaterally treated as having retired, they are seeking payment of the monthly salary, summer and winter bonuses, and fiscal year-end allowances that they had previously been receiving.
In addition, the Plaintiffs contend that the disparities between their treatment and that of full-time teachers are unreasonable with respect to basic salary, summer and winter bonuses, fiscal year-end allowances, fixed overtime pay, housing allowances, length-of-service allowances, and family allowances. They are therefore also seeking payment of the corresponding differences.
The Plaintiffs are not seeking reclassification as full-time teachers. Rather, they are asking the Court to determine, item by item, whether there is a reasonable justification for each disparity in treatment.
We believe that there is no reasonable justification for these disparities and that the differences claimed by the Plaintiffs should be paid.
Based on the arguments and evidence submitted, we trust that the Court will reach a fair judgment.
In Closing
We are aware that there are many different views on this matter. Rather than trading responses to individual comments, we believe it is important to explain our position not by being swayed by conjecture about age, employment type, or individual ability, but on the basis of the employment contracts, the work rules, how they were actually applied, and the facts that can be verified.
This case is at once an individual employment dispute concerning two plaintiffs and a question about the grounds and procedures by which an employer may set the subsequent working conditions of a worker who has converted from a fixed-term to an open-ended contract.
The open-ended-conversion system is one that, under certain conditions, allows a worker whose fixed-term contract has been repeatedly renewed to convert to a contract with no fixed term. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare itself states that, where it is necessary to apply working conditions that are not ordinarily set for fixed-term workers—such as a mandatory retirement age—those conditions should be appropriately established and clarified in advance (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, “Handbook on the Indefinite-Term Conversion Rule,” 2021).
This dispute also needs to be seen against a larger backdrop. It concerns not only the two plaintiffs but many workers employed on a non-regular basis. Across the course of the postwar labor movement, non-regular employment has continued to spread. A declining birth rate leads directly to a shrinking working-age population, and we believe that one of the factors that accelerated that decline is the spread of unstable employment in which people find it hard to plan for the future. At Sakuragaoka, too, of the 18 male non-regular teachers, only 2 are raising children (according to a 2024 survey by the union). The normalization of unstable employment erodes the trust-based, “Japanese-style” employment relationship that had been built up over time, and it can lead to the problems of each individual worker being written off as a matter of “self-responsibility.”
In the past, it was not uncommon for someone to have their contract terminated at once simply on the ground that it was a fixed-term contract if they raised their voice. With the enactment of the Labor Contracts Act, the room for workers to speak up has gradually widened. This case is also one that asks how far those rights—rights that were supposed to have expanded—are actually protected.
We take it as a positive thing in itself that, prompted by this lawsuit, so many people have taken an interest and sent us their views. From a situation in which it was treated as a matter of course that such workers could simply be cut loose, the fact that people can now raise their voices and that debate is arising is, however small, a change in itself.
At the same time, there are also voices saying “they’re only part-timers, after all” or “it must be because they lacked ability.” But whether an employment contract has validly ended is not determined by that kind of third-party conjecture. It is a matter to be judged on the facts—the terms of the contract, the applicable work rules, agreements between labor and management, and the actual practice. Each time we see opinions based only on assumptions or preconceptions that lack any legal foundation, we are, paradoxically, all the more convinced of the significance of this lawsuit and of the press conference, and of the importance of having spoken up. And we are keenly aware that, in order to remove divisions and barriers, it is important to keep explaining things carefully.
Ultimately, the matter will be judged by the court and the Tokyo Metropolitan Labor Relations Commission. We will continue to keep you informed, as far as we are able, of how the proceedings develop.
We ask for your continued understanding and support.