The International Schools Review Forum

At the school in which I currently teach (though not much longer), my "contract" that the school has one file for me is merely the offer letter that they emailed to me from abroad, before I was in the country, and which I printed, signed, scanned, and emailed back to them.

Researching this generally, it seems clear that they are in fact not an employment contract and, depending on the wording (especially if employment is contingent on anything else happening) not necessarily binding.

I knew that letters of intent were not in fact employment contracts, but what about letter offers? In my thinking, which is admittedly not fully informed, an offer letter is more akin to a letter of intent than it is an employment contract.

So, is an offer letter equivalent to an employment contract? Is anyone else currently working under an offer letter and nothing else?

Legally and simplistically, a contract is a contract if it has 3 things:
1. Offer (the job/work you are being offered)
2. Consideration (the salary and package you will receive for doing the job)
3. Acceptance (your agreement to points 1 and 2

If your offer letter has those 3 things, and it sounds like it does, than it is legally a contract.
However, schools typically have a formal contract, beyond an offer letter. Not having seen your actual letter, it is hard to tell much about it.

A letter of intent may or may not be a contract. Letters of intent do not typically include the Offer and Consideration portions of a legal contract, especially as a letter of intent often comes from the employee (the Offer and Consideration must come from the employer, or it isn't really an Offer, it's a request).

Is there a specific issue you're trying to solve re your employment or conditions of employment, or are you just trying to figure out if you are under contract?

Sids criteria are a little too simplistic and western. In many Asian regions a contract is a living document, indicating relationship and intent, but not execution. It is at best a starting point for negotiations. In such cultures an organization or individual is not going to perform contrary or against their interests, contracts work when all parties are benefiting, when the benefits stop or become losses than the contract no longer means anything.
In regards to simplicity while those three criteria are often the minimum requirements of agreements, any document classified as a contract must comply not with just fundamental principals, but all technical and practical legalities of the jurisdiction it is executed in. Lack of complying and adhering to those details may invalidate a contract.

Contracts are not written for the bennefit of the IT, they are written for the bennefit of the IS, and they are unilaterlally drafted. The IS sets the terms and conditions of service and consideration, and you either accept, reject or negotiate. The practical reality is that many ITs are not in a position to legally evaluate the obligations and duties of a foreign contract (if its even in English), and if they were would likely find themselves unemployable, since many ISs have a take it or leave it approach when it comes to technical or intricate details of the contract. You can negotiate the salary, contact hours, allowances to varying degrees but if you think article IX, section 6, part B relating to communications and publications referencing or reflecting the ISs character in a negative way is something you can negotiate than that is crazy talk.

Maybe yes, and probably no.

Was the document (offer letter) signed by a hiring authority of the IS, or was it just you? Who signed it a recruiter, a staff member, the principal? What does it include?

The "Yes" response is contingent on the regional jurisdiction of contract law. In some regions only legal practitioners can draft a "contract" and call it a contract. As a result these regions use other forms of agreement which may include an offer letter or, agreement or MOU (memorandum of understanding). The other issue is what the body of contract law has established, in many western regions the intent of the agreement is more important than the technical nature and possible deficiencies. In such cases the IS is employing you as a teacher, youve been providing educational services under their direction, and they have been (hopefully) compensating you) it would appear on a prima facia basis that the ISs intent was to employ you, and the ITs intent was to perform a service for compensation.

The "No" response is likely a means labor mitigation for the IS. They will argue (and it would be common in such cases) that the "offer letter" is a series of specifications for which compensation is "offered" under terms of continual services, essentially making your business relationship the equivalent of at-will employment. As long as your performance of services is satisfactory the offer of work in continued. In such cases and under these conditions you are essentially an independent contractor or consultant (who provides classroom based instructional services) within the confines and scope of terms and conditions outlined in your offer letter. That offer can likely be terminated or discontinued at any time, and is likely non binding for any explicit terms of service.
Legally, you essentially have an "agreement" to work together as long as both parties are willing to do so, you would very likely find yourself at a disadvantage in any legal proceedings if you were to pursue damages, and thats exactly what your IS wants. If they dismiss you, after a long legal process you will end up with nothing or very little, as long as the IS was in compliance with all labor and employment law (which if they werent you would have the burden to prove).

You need to specify the country... as the laws for each country (including what is/is not a contract) vary, sometimes GREATLY. Never assume that ANY of the laws in the country you are/will be teaching are the same as your country of origin.

Thank you for the detailed information!

This is really a matter of curiosity, more than anything else. The school probably uses this form of contract as they are easier to get out of if they want to let someone go. I haven't had any problems, I just was wondering if I am technically under contract or not.

Legally, I am not sure but probably I am. In the eyes of the international school world, I almost certainly am.

@Mr. Miller

The views of the IE field mean nothing in employment disputes.