Job Discussion Forums

[saloc]

I wonder if anyone can help with this. I have been offered a contract to teach English in Japan. The contract stipulates that I must not engage in teaching English in the same prefecture as the school offering the contract for one year after the completion of my employment with that school. Does anybody know whether such a clause would be legally enforceable if I signed the contract (assuming I still have a working visa)?

[locagrl814]

which company is this????

[azarashi sushi]

Sounds like "Lingo School" in Takamatsu ... Whether or not it's legally binding, it does seem rather strange. I think this is a warning sign... and this school is best avoided.

A.S.

[Sherri]

This is not Lingo School is it? This was already discussed on this forum under "Would you accept this contract--advice please" (p2). Check it out.

As far I know this clause is not legally enforceable.

[homersimpson]

Actually, I seem to recall AEON had that stipulation in its contract. And I believe other eikaiwas have it written in as well. However, it's irrelevant as once you complete your contract, your former employer couldn't care less where you work or live. In practice this contract stipulation is not "enforced."

[tjpnz2000]

Japanese conversation schools like to put all sorts of things in thier contracts, the most famous being the NOVA stipulation that teachers are not allowed to see or socialise with students outside the school. I believe that 2 teachers who were fired for have `social relations` outside school are currently taking NOVA to court over this.

Although I am not completely up to date on the Japanese legal code or contract law the basic principle should be universal, a clause in contract that is ultra virase , that is latern (probably misspelt) for a making a rule outside of the power to do so.

In these instances the question is this: can an employment contract dictate behaviour outside the scope of employment? In the case you mention, after the completion of the contract. The simple answer is probably, almost certainly, not.

These clauses are put into contracts because the people who write them probably have no, or very little, legal training and don't really know what is enforcable and what is not. Teachers sign the contracts because they can't delete claused that they don't like and they probably figure that if they `break` the contract they won't get caught anyway.

An employers main power over you is the treat of termination of employment. In the case you mention the clause only comes into force after the contract is terminated or completed, therefore they can't fire you because you don't work for them. In theory they could take you to court for breach of contract, however, I would say this is unlikely in the extreme because first they have to catch you and then bring legal procedings which would of course be expensive.

I wouldn't go shoving this post in your prospective employers face and I haven't studied law for a long time but I wouldn't worry too much.

All of which begs the question of why I spent the last who knows how long writing all of this I hope this brings peace of mind or I am a real looser who needs to get out more

T

[PAULH]

[saloc]

Thanks to everybody for your replies. There is a bit of a story behind this query but it is too long to go into and not really important in order to answer the question. Suffice to say the company has made it clear that they would expect me to honour this clause. I am of he same opinion as most who have replied - that the company either could or would do nothing if I were to seek work in the prefecture, but I was wondering if anyone actually knew of any website or such where this is shown to be the case in law. Unfortunately, what we think is reasonable or acceptable isn't always what is stated in law! If PaulH is correct, as I expect, then it doesn`t really matter because I have only seen a contract written in English. Paul - do you know where the rule about English/Japanese contracts is written? I couldn't see it on the generalunion site. Thanks again for your help.

[PAULH]

Saloc

I dont have any hard and fast links to prove this, but I think you have to consider that in Japan almost all most students can not even speak English after six years of high school, Japanese is the only national language used in Japan, there are probably about 4 or 5 politicians out of 450 who can speak passable English, foreigners incarcerated in Japanese prisons are not allowed to speak anything but Japanese with their lawyers, Japanese judges are to the far right of Georg Bush in their conservatism, and only Japanese is used by lawyers and court officers well you get the idea. I very much doubt if you waved a contract written in Japanese or Arabic in an American court room the judge would take much notice of it.

Anyway I have passed a message on to John O'Neill at the general union and he may be able to give me a more substantive answer, as they deal with employers and Labbour offices on a daily basis.

In my opinion, the English contract is for the consumption of immigration as the employee has to knwo what his work conditions are in his own language, and the unions use it to negotiate with employers when they cross the line. What is written in Japanese contracts is often different than the English ones (for an idea of what I mean you should look at some of the university contracts on http://www.debito.org/blacklist.html

usually its the unions job to negotiate with the employer about contract conditions and violations and will threaten them with a lawsuit if they prove unbending. Usually the problem is resolved with an employer way before it reaches a courtroom. (the union has has several major legal successes against conversation schools such as Nichibei, NOVA, Berlitz so it may be interesting to see what role English contracts played in those negotiations)

[PAULH]

[saloc]

Thanks Paul. Greatly appreciated!