What strikes me as a very unfair situation has arisen for a friend of mine.
She retired from teaching at age 65 a number of years ago, but subsequently went back to work as a substitute teacher, initially on a part time basis, but now full time. As she is past retirement age, she is not included in the pension scheme and is not paying any employee contributions.
However, a pension-related deduction is being made from her salary. I had a look at the FAQ on the subject and it states that is applies to the remuneration of pensionable public servants. However, it then goes on to say (inter alia) in Section B that the criteria for being liable to PRD are that one is a public servant and - (a) is a member of a public service pension scheme or (b) is entltled to a benefit under such a scheme.
It appears that this latter criterion is being used as a justification for applying the deduction even though she is not entitled to any benefit in respect of her current employment. This strikes me as patently unfair and it may not have been intended to operate in this way when the legislation was framed. She tried talking to payroll department about it and got the runaround from someone who sounded like they really didn't understand the issue (or maybe just didn't care).
I would welcome any advice on where she should go from here. Or is it just an anomaly that she is going to have to accept if she wishes to continue teaching?
She retired from teaching at age 65 a number of years ago, but subsequently went back to work as a substitute teacher, initially on a part time basis, but now full time. As she is past retirement age, she is not included in the pension scheme and is not paying any employee contributions.
However, a pension-related deduction is being made from her salary. I had a look at the FAQ on the subject and it states that is applies to the remuneration of pensionable public servants. However, it then goes on to say (inter alia) in Section B that the criteria for being liable to PRD are that one is a public servant and - (a) is a member of a public service pension scheme or (b) is entltled to a benefit under such a scheme.
It appears that this latter criterion is being used as a justification for applying the deduction even though she is not entitled to any benefit in respect of her current employment. This strikes me as patently unfair and it may not have been intended to operate in this way when the legislation was framed. She tried talking to payroll department about it and got the runaround from someone who sounded like they really didn't understand the issue (or maybe just didn't care).
I would welcome any advice on where she should go from here. Or is it just an anomaly that she is going to have to accept if she wishes to continue teaching?