NAGASAKI – An English teacher whose employment contract with Nagasaki University was terminated just before he would have been eligible to claim an unfixed term is set to return to work indefinitely after a court settlement.
I don’t understand this. I am totally happy for the guy and he obviously deserves it. It’s a total dick move to fire someone so close to their retirement but the law is still very confusing.
His contracts totaled 8 years which would make him eligible for the conversion but the article says he was just short of the 5 years. Does the law only considered contracts signed after the law passed? If so isn’t the entire point of the 5 year duration that employers can terminate the contract just before that time?
Do you manually have to apply to convert the contract to indefinitely after 5 years and if you don’t you don’t get the benefits? In which case again, why did he receive the “special” treatment?
I have way more questions than answers after reading the article.
He was already 2 years in to a 3 year contract when the 5 year law came into effect. Renewed for 3 more = 3 + 1, then 1 month shy of 2 more = <5+1. I believe the reason is his total employed period actually exceeded 5 years if you consider the portion that partially overlapped at the start of the law.
deleted by creator
