Employment law help - Scenario in work

[pmurphy]

It came to my attention today that one member of our staff has the following arrangement -

We work in the education sector

The staff member has been employed for 11 years (continuously).

Every year she works September to June. She then receives her P45, signs on the dole for 3 months and comes back in September. She is a 'permanent' member of staff.

This situation strikes me as incredibly strange and unfair. From an employers point of view you can see how this would save the college money but if it was the norm and acceptable, why arent all Academic staff subject to a similar working arrangement?.

The staff member does not want to be laid off every summer but receives her P45 etc,

Perhaps this is quite normal? Many thanks for any feedback

 

[AJC]

Seems completely reasonable, assuming there are no duties to be performed in the summer and they are not hiring someone else to replace her.

Should be the same for all teachers/lecturers etc

 

[pmurphy]

Is that an insight based on law or just your opinion?

 

[JQ2002]

I assume this now affects the employees term of service in that if she were officialy let go should would not qualify for redundancy.

I.e she does not have the full 11 years service as it is broken every year. any views?

 

[Card]

what type of contract is she given each September?
If it is a fixed term contract, then there are definite protections there she should be able to avail of

 

[Mpsox]

What the employer is doing is illegal, see below from the NERA website

[broken link removed]

 

[pmurphy]

what type of contract is she given each September?
If it is a fixed term contract, then there are definite protections there she should be able to avail of

My understanding is that it is a contract issued 8 or 9 years ago which states that she is let go in the summer and re-admitted to payroll in September.

Mpsox - Thank you for that link. From what I can see, if a new contract is offered every year for X amount of years it becomes problematic. I wonder how this affects someone who signed a contract 8 or 9 years previously.

The issuing of the P45 to my mind seems an unusual process.

Many thanks for your helpful replies

 

[Welfarite]

From a SW point of view, the 'arrangement' is as bizarre as you put it. To get JB/JA, one must be available for and genuinely seeking work. every school holiday, thousands of terachers, school cleaners, bus drivers, lollipop people trapse into Sw to claim dole until they go back to the same employer when school opens again. They go through the same hoopsthat all unemployed people go through, but a blind eye is given to the fact that they really have no intention of working for the period they are out (what person would take a job for two weeks at Christmas time when they know that they will be going back to one in early January and, for that matter, what employer wouldm take on somebody like that?).

What happens is that the 'Live Register' is bumped up at these periods and the claims clog up the system, especially in the current pressurised climate within SW.

But regarding the p45, these are not given in general, or looked for. A letter from the school outlining what holiday pay has been given suffices. I might add that the HSE are alos manipulating the SW system in this way by employing 'temporary' staff, some of whom have been in HSE on and off for ten years or so! There is aslo the issue that these people will never qualify for redundancy.

 

[Diziet]

A friend had a similar teaching contract with no pay for holidays. This went on for years. She finally consulted a solicitor who wrote to her employer informing them that she was planning a Labour Court claim. The employer was completely in the wrong and they issued a contract the next week.

FWIW, she said the union were no help at all.

 

[pmurphy]

The plot thickens...no contract / Terms & Conditions ever issued.

Presumably this complicates the matter enormously?

 

[Diziet]

The plot thickens...no contract / Terms & Conditions ever issued.

Presumably this complicates the matter enormously?

Not really. but she should really see a solicitor. What the college is doing is not legitimate.