The second oral argument was held on September 28th at 10:00 a.m., and the plaintiff made a statement in the first preliminary document.

The first preliminary document outlines the following claims.

Article 8 of the Constitution shows that even though the collective bargaining rights of fiscal year appointed employees were infringed upon by being incorporated into regular positions, the Land Public Service Law did not take any measures to eliminate the disadvantage. This is in violation of the Articles.

In other words, for fiscal year-appointed employees, (1) it used to be possible to conduct collective bargaining and conclude a collective agreement, but with the revision of the Land Public Corporations Act, the right to conclude a collective agreement has been taken away; (2) Even if a written agreement is concluded as a result (Article 55, Paragraph 9 of the Local Public Corporations Act), the agreement is not legally binding, and it is simply a matter of good faith and responsibility on the part of both local government authorities and employee organizations. (Article 55, Paragraph 10 of the Land Public Service Law), Article 58, Paragraph 1 of the Land Public Service Law deprives fiscal year appointed employees of the right to conclude collective agreements without taking any alternative measures. It violates Article 28 of the Constitution and is invalid.

Therefore, the Tokyo Metropolitan Labor Relations Commission's decision that the plaintiff was ineligible to apply for relief to the Labor Relations Commission because of the change in the application of the Land and Public Corporation Law is seriously flawed and should be rescinded.

The defendant is scheduled to make a rebuttal to the plaintiff's claim at the next hearing.

The right to collective bargaining and the right to conclude collective agreements is an important means for fiscal year-appointed employees, who are placed in precarious positions, to seek job security. We appreciate your continued support.

On the date of the first oral argument, after the statement of the complaint and written answer, Mr. Kiyomi Okunuki, chairman of the executive committee of the plaintiff, and Ms. Kiyoko Ayukawa of the same ALT branch, made statements of opinion.

 Ms. Okunuki (Overview)

 “Until we switched to the fiscal year appointment staff system, we had continued collective bargaining with the Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education (Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education). That all changed in July 2020. proposed collective bargaining on issues such as measures against the coronavirus at schools, but the board of education refused the collective bargaining on the grounds that the labor union law did not apply to employees appointed during the fiscal year. I refused the offer from, and now I can't even talk about it.

 The ALT branch was greatly shocked by the sudden turn of events. Of course, as a representative myself, I could not understand why this kind of thing was allowed. Even after the introduction of the fiscal year appointment staff system, nothing has changed in the work environment and work content from when I was a "special part-time employee" according to Article 3, Paragraph 3 of the Local Public Service Act. The only thing that has changed is that the right to operate as a trade union has been completely taken away.

 Now that labor unions have been deprived of the means to conduct collective bargaining, it can be said that the fiscal year-appointed staff are forced to unconditionally accept all conditions, regulations, and rules from the Tokyo Board of Education and schools. They are forced to make the ultimate choice: accept the conditions unilaterally presented to them, or refuse to accept them and lose their jobs. Clearly, this is not a healthy labor relationship. ”

 Ms. Ayukawa  (Overview)

 "The work that ALTs do has not changed at all between when they were 'special non-regular staff members' and after they became 'fiscal year appointment staff members. i have the same job. When the system changed, I had absolutely no other choice, and in order to continue working as an ALT, I had no choice but to become a fiscal year appointment staff.

 ALTs are completely different from "regular civil servants," who have low salaries, no status guarantees, and are guaranteed a stable status. ALTs in such an unstable and vulnerable position are unable to negotiate with their employers alone when problems arise in their work. In solidarity, we need to negotiate with employers for better status and better working conditions. Until now, the Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education has responded to requests for collective bargaining from our union precisely because it had an obligation to comply with collective bargaining. And yet, suddenly, the protective union activity was taken away. The constitutional rights given to workers were suddenly taken away. Is this allowed? (Omitted)

 ALTs need the three labor rights. We have filed this lawsuit to restore the unreasonably deprived rights. Please make a fair judgment. ”

 After the date, we held a debriefing meeting at Hibiya Park.

 On the next oral argument dates, we plan to deepen our discussions on specific issues related to the Tokyo Labor Relations Commission's decision.

 Thank you for your continued support.