Secondment Agreement Template for a Chef Sent Abroad From Japan

A chef sent abroad on secondment needs two documents: a secondment agreement between the Japanese company and the overseas company, and a written statement of working conditions for the chef. Below is a clause-by-clause skeleton for both, plus a compliant alternative to the repayment penalty clause many employers want and Article 16 of the Labour Standards Act forbids. For a local hire, the employment contract with the overseas company, drafted under local law, is the document that matters instead.

1. Two documents, not one

Both are needed because a secondment involves three parties: the two companies settle their own relationship in the first document, and the chef needs their own conditions in writing regardless of what the companies agree between themselves. Skeletons for both follow. Treat them as a starting point for a sharoshi (labour and social security attorney) or lawyer to adapt, not as a finished contract.

2. Secondment agreement: clause-by-clause skeleton

The items that feed directly into social insurance and tax are the period (a year or more changes income tax residence; five years is the social insurance line in agreement countries), who actually pays the salary under Sending Company's own pay and secondment rules, and the duties and title, which must match the visa application.

3. Statement of working conditions: clause-by-clause skeleton

Clause 2's scope-of-change wording and clause 8 are where disputes start later; write both as specifically as you can even if some detail is genuinely still open.

4. The law behind the clauses

Article 14 of the Labour Contracts Act voids a secondment order that is an abuse of rights given its necessity and how the employee was selected, so be ready to explain why this chef and why this period. Article 15 of the Labour Standards Act requires stating pay, hours and other conditions at hiring; Article 5 of its Enforcement Ordinance has required stating the scope of possible changes to place of work and duties since April 2024, which is why clause 2 above states a scope rather than a single address. Article 15(2) also lets an employee terminate immediately if stated conditions are untrue, and Article 15(3) requires the employer to pay necessary travel costs if an employee who moved home for the job returns home within 14 days of termination.

On social insurance, a Japan Pension Service leaflet states that pay from the overseas workplace still counts toward the contribution base if the sending company's pay or secondment rules show it is, in substance, paid by the sending company, which is why Articles 5 and 6 of the skeleton above must match those internal rules. On accident insurance, MHLW confirms a worker sent by a Japan employer can be covered by rosai special enrolment, applied for by the sending employer.

5. A compliant alternative to a repayment penalty

The clause employers ask for most is some version of "repay your flights in full if you resign within two years." Article 16 of the Labour Standards Act prohibits a contract that fixes a penalty for breach, or a predetermined amount of damages, for breach of the employment contract. How a specific repayment clause is assessed against this depends on its drafting and the nature of the cost, so have any such clause reviewed before use; do not assume a label like "training cost" makes it safe.

Two structures used instead:

• A relocation grant with a tapering claw-back drafted as a loan. The company advances relocation costs as a loan, separate from the employment contract, forgiven in instalments (for example one third at 12, 24 and 36 months of service). Because it is framed as loan forgiveness tied to service, not a penalty for quitting, it sits closer to the accepted side of the line than a flat repayment clause, but the drafting still needs a lawyer's review.
• A retention bonus paid in instalments. Instead of clawing back relocation costs, pay a bonus in stages (arrival, 12 months, 24 months) that simply is not paid if the chef has already left. This avoids Article 16 entirely because nothing is being clawed back.

Either structure needs its own written terms, separate from or as a schedule to the statement of working conditions, and needs a lawyer to check it against Article 16 and, for a local hire, the equivalent rule in the country of work.

6. Employment contracts for local hires

Where the overseas company hires the chef directly, the local employment contract is the operative document, not a secondment agreement, and it follows the labour law of the country of work: minimum wage, working hours, probation, dismissal and, in some countries, review as part of the work visa application. Build it from the chef employment contract checklist for clause-by-clause content, and the chef offer letter template for the document that precedes it. If the contract is bilingual, state which language version prevails, and give the chef a version they can actually read; a contract only the company's lawyer can read protects no one in a dispute.

7. Checklist before drafting

1. Does the chef's original statement of working conditions at hiring already cover overseas workplaces in its scope of possible changes?
2. Can you explain the need for the secondment and why this chef was chosen (Labour Contracts Act, Article 14)?
3. Have you decided the period, and in an agreement country whether it exceeds five years?
4. Have you decided who pays the salary and matched that to the secondment rules?
5. Who applies for the certificate of coverage, rosai special enrolment and local insurance?
6. Which costs does the law of the country of work put on the employer?
7. If you want a cost recovery clause, is it structured as loan forgiveness or a staged bonus, and has a lawyer reviewed it against Article 16?

General information, not legal or employment advice. The validity and interpretation of secondment agreements and employment contracts depend on the facts and the law that applies. Check the official sources below, verified in September 2026, and have any actual contract reviewed by a sharoshi, a lawyer or another qualified adviser.