Tried Bringing It Up with the Prefectural International Affairs Div. Too, But... - A Japanese Non-Regular Worker Filed for Labor Tribunal Proceedings - #17

With less than a month remaining before my employment was expired, I appealed to the government's Prefectural International Affairs Division regarding this situation. I did so because my organization had ignored my complaints about Director Daubechies’ conduct, and when I reported the matter to the Prefectural Human Resource Division—which had jurisdiction—I was told that the division directly overseeing my organization was the International Affairs Division.

"Thank you for your assistance.
My name is Leo, and I have been reporting on the situation unfolding at the XX branch of the △△ Prefectural International Association.
On [Month/Day 1], Director Daubechies abruptly informed me that my employment contract would expire at the end of though month and would not be renewed.
When I asked for the reason the following day, I received no answer; however, after the holiday, I was told that there was no obligation to provide a reason beyond the contract expiratihough, if pressed, the issue was 'competence.'
When I asked specifically which aspect of my competence was in question, I was told it would take time to explain, and subsequently, the response remained a steadfast insistence that there was no contractual obligation to provide notice.
While the expiration of the contract was ostensibly a decision made by the Association, in reality, Director Daubechies is the only person in a position to make that judgment.
The branch is staffed solely by Director Daubechies and two temporary employees including me, meaning that headquarters staff located far in △△ prefecture are not in a position to evaluate my work attitude or competence.
I do not wish to claim that I am in the right; rather, I wish to point out that this situation is unfair. Regarding my primary duty—accounting—I have consistently submitted monthly reports to the International Division and the Association headquarters without delay. [skipped the details]
This constitutes harassment that exploits the current employment structure, masking the situation on paper to make it appear as though the contract simply expired.
Should such unjust and dishonest conduct really be allowed to stand?
Director Daubechies has scheduled a successor interview for my replacement on [Month/Day], effectively creating a *fait accompli* that forces me to leave my position.
I would very much appreciate the opportunity to explain the situation to you in person; could we please arrange a meeting at a time convenient for you before the end of this month?
Thank you for your attention to this matter."

I received the following reply from the International Affairs Division:
"Dear [Name],
Thank you for your letter*, and please accept our apologies for the delay in responding.
My name is [Name] from the International Affairs Division of △△ Prefecture.
I have shared the contents of your letter with the Executive Director of the △△ Prefectural International Association.
Based on the details you provided, Mr. Gray, Executive Director of the International Association plans to meet with you soon to hear more about the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

[Name],
Councilor, International Affairs Division, Department of General Planning, △△ Prefecture."

letter* : I had sent the exact same message via a  postally certified mail with delivery confirmation. While "certified mail with content verification" (*naiyou shoumei*) would have been preferable, I didn't have the time to go through those formalities; my sole, desperate aim was to ensure the facts couldn't simply be swept under the rug.

I received a phone call from Executive Director Gray at headquarters almost immediately.
This was the same executive who, during a previous dispute with Director Daubechies over the division of duties, had listened only to Director’s side of the story; yet now, the moment a reply arrived from the International Division Counselor, he called me right away. He said he wanted to meet with me the following day. His tone was so polite—as if he were a completely different person—that it felt deeply unsettling.

I sent the following reply to the International Affairs Division:
"Thank you for your reply despite your busy schedule.
I received a call earlier today from Executive Director Gray of the △△ Prefecture International Association regarding the meeting scheduled for tomorrow afternoon.
I have acknowledged the arrangements for the meeting for the time being.
However, I must point out that, despite my previous explanations, Executive Director Gray has consistently listened only to the views of Director Daubechies—as evidenced by the documents I have previously attached.
What I am requesting is a meeting where a third party—such as someone from the △△ Prefecture International Affairs Division or the Human Resource Division—is present to hear the discussion."

A reply follows from the International Affairs Division as well:
"Dear Leo, 
Thank you for your response.
I acknowledge that you are scheduled to meet with Executive Director Gray of the International Association tomorrow.
Regarding the matter you have raised, I believe it is essential that the International Association provides you with a full explanation.
Thank you for your cooperation.
 [Name], International Affairs Division, △△ Prefecture"

The International Division likely views me as an "oddball" who holds a grudge over the non-renewal of my contract. Unlike me—who has never visited the International Division—Executive Director Gray and Director Daubechies from the Association headquarters frequently go back and forth there for work, giving them ample opportunity to spin the narrative to their own advantage.
A meeting is meaningless unless a third party is present. Yet, the International Association insisted on an unfair "two-against-one" meeting involving myself and the two supervisors who had subjected me to workplace harassment; their apparent intention was to claim on the record that they had granted my request for a meeting, and that they had "convinced" me—by framing the harassment merely as "guidance"—that the contract was simply ending as scheduled.

Thank you for reading.

Leo

P.S.
My notes here are the translation of my Japanese notes, which I checked every sentence. Most of characters here are Japanese but their names are written in western style. This is because I wrote them as “A”, “B”, “C”, and so on in the original notes, and actually they do not begin with A, B, C, or the like.
If you are a native English speaker and find some words strange, please let me know anytime.
Thank you.