Question about permanent teaching post?

Flecktarn

I was recently talking to a teacher and I was discussing how they believed there was a bad working atmosphere between teachers and management in the school. Now before you stop reading, this isn't a bashing thread or anything I just want peoples insight or opinions!

The teacher then told me that they had to take the school (I believe?) to court. The story goes that they started working in the school 7 years ago and were on a temporary post. Their problem was that they were only filling in for maternity leaves since then and were only acting merely as a sub. Instead of building up, I presume, after each year and receiving their own classes, they were just reassigned to substitute for another year and instead were constantly thrown off course and they technically didn't teach their own class, where I presume they should have been given their own class at one stage and then see how they got on?

I'm wondering who exactly the teacher had to take to court? Would they have went to the Employment Appeals Tribunal? The teacher won the case in whatever court it was, how long would the court case process have lasted since the teacher in question would have be teaching constantly through that time period?

I'm wondering how this reflects on the school itself, I'd have to imagine that there would be a rusty relationships between the principal and the teacher in question since said principle was supposedly on the board of management and would have had a role in reassigning the teacher each year? Sounds like a terrible situation?

Thanks in advance.

gaeilgebeo

Flecktarn wrote: »

I was recently talking to a teacher and I was discussing how they believed there was a bad working atmosphere between teachers and management in the school. Now before you stop reading, this isn't a bashing thread or anything I just want peoples insight or opinions!

The teacher then told me that they had to take the school (I believe?) to court. The story goes that they started working in the school 7 years ago and were on a temporary post. Their problem was that they were only filling in for maternity leaves since then and were only acting merely as a sub. Instead of building up, I presume, after each year and receiving their own classes, they were just reassigned to substitute for another year and instead were constantly thrown off course and they technically didn't teach their own class, where I presume they should have been given their own class at one stage and then see how they got on?

I'm wondering who exactly the teacher had to take to court? Would they have went to the Employment Appeals Tribunal? The teacher won the case in whatever court it was, how long would the court case process have lasted since the teacher in question would have be teaching constantly through that time period?

I'm wondering how this reflects on the school itself, I'd have to imagine that there would be a rusty relationships between the principal and the teacher in question since said principle was supposedly on the board of management and would have had a role in reassigning the teacher each year? Sounds like a terrible situation?

Thanks in advance.

7 consecutive years doing back to back maternity leaves in one school, in one subject? - highly unlikely/unusual.
If it is the case, a maternity leave does exactly what it says on the tin. It is a contract that ends when the teacher returns. The school doesn't suddenly "owe" you a job because the contract is up. A maternity leave contract, be it one or seven, does not entitle you to a different contract when it is over.
Your friend was very foolish didn't look for her "own" job/hours elsewhere, especially at a time when jobs were plentiful.
Either way, this story doesn't add up.

rainbowtrout

OK, we don't have the full facts of the story here, but here is my take on it as you have presented it.

The teacher was hired to cover a maternity leave, which is a temporary contract. The teacher was subsequently rehired to cover a variety of other temporary contracts following this, for a period of 7 years.

At no point in this time did the teacher have their own classes and was not entitled to retain the classes he/she was covering as they belonged to another teacher who was out on leave. The school is not obliged to provide a teacher on a temporary contract with a timetable of their own at the end of the temporary contract. That is in reference to your comment about not building up their own classes over time.

School is not obliged to do this. If you're hired for 6 months to cover a French teacher's maternity leave that's all you're entitled to.

However, this is where the problems start. If a teacher is continuously employed by a school for four consecutive years they are entitled to what is known as a Contract of Indefinite Duration (CID), which in effect is a permanent contract (not going to get into the CID v Permanent debate here). This can include maternity leave cover and sick leave cover etc. This teacher probably took a case for a CID based on this. It would probably have been a Labour Court ruling rather than a civil court ruling.

But we don't have all the details, there may have been a few hours that he/she had that were their own, but changed from year to year : resource, CSPE, computer classes etc. Personally I'd find it hard to believe a teacher did 7 years of back to back maternity leaves and sick leaves, which just happened to be in their own subject areas and still didn't get a few hours of their own somewhere along the way.

As for the board of management, it would be standard procedure for the principal to be on the board of management.

Flecktarn

Cheers for the replies guys!

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

7 consecutive years doing back to back maternity leaves in one school, in one subject? - highly unlikely/unusual.
If it is the case, a maternity leave does exactly what it says on the tin. It is a contract that ends when the teacher returns. The school doesn't suddenly "owe" you a job because the contract is up. A maternity leave contract, be it one or seven, does not entitle you to a different contract when it is over.
Your friend was very foolish didn't look for her "own" job/hours elsewhere, especially at a time when jobs were plentiful.
Either way, this story doesn't add up.

I see. Maybe I should have stated that the teacher in question was doing three different subjects over them years. Two were for maternity leave and one was filling in for a career break. Also I think they could have had one or two years doing remedial classes with students where they weren't actually filling in for anyone, raindowtrout sums it up ''there may have been a few hours that he/she had that were their own, but changed from year to year''.

So she actually may have had up to two years of a temporary contract of her own accord, teaching remedial and not just being a sub? Still doesn't matter though does it? You see the years were scattered; say her first year was a sub, next two teaching remedial while not filling in etc. I actually think her first year she had her own class and the the employer said ''Well since X is going next year on maternity leave well keep Y since she did that year there''. Therefore she was in limbo constantly?

rainbowtrout wrote: »

OK, we don't have the full facts of the story here, but here is my take on it as you have presented it.

The teacher was hired to cover a maternity leave, which is a temporary contract. The teacher was subsequently rehired to cover a variety of other temporary contracts following this, for a period of 7 years.

At no point in this time did the teacher have their own classes and was not entitled to retain the classes he/she was covering as they belonged to another teacher who was out on leave. The school is not obliged to provide a teacher on a temporary contract with a timetable of their own at the end of the temporary contract. That is in reference to your comment about not building up their own classes over time.

Sorry I should have mentioned what I have said in reply to Gaeilgebeo, have a look up above.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

But we don't have all the details, there may have been a few hours that he/she had that were their own, but changed from year to year : resource, CSPE, computer classes etc. Personally I'd find it hard to believe a teacher did 7 years of back to back maternity leaves and sick leaves, which just happened to be in their own subject areas and still didn't get a few hours of their own somewhere along the way.

As for the board of management, it would be standard procedure for the principal to be on the board of management.

The part I have in bold there is what happened, she was fed up of being given her own hours one year and then filling in the year after. It was the uncertainty that got to her I think, the fact that everything was different every time she came back in September. Dare I say she felt as if she was being ''used'' since she wasn't permanent. (The term ''used'' is a bit heavy but you get what I'm saying!)

rainbowtrout wrote: »

However, this is where the problems start. If a teacher is continuously employed by a school for four consecutive years they are entitled to what is known as a Contract of Indefinite Duration (CID), which in effect is a permanent contract (not going to get into the CID v Permanent debate here). This can include maternity leave cover and sick leave cover etc. This teacher probably took a case for a CID based on this. It would probably have been a Labour Court ruling rather than a civil court ruling.

That must have been it so alright. So basically if you cover maternity leave for them two years and then say get your own class for the next two, your entitled to this CID? Any links or past threads on these CID's?

rainbowtrout wrote: »

As for the board of management, it would be standard procedure for the principal to be on the board of management.

As I expected

rainbowtrout

Well the important thing in getting a CID is that the years were consecutive and without a break, so it sounds like she did have her own hours over the 7 years interspersed with maternity leaves etc, that would give her grounds for a CID, but as you say the fact that she had to challenge it might mean bad blood between her and the principal. Not an easy one to manage, she obviously wants job security, but working conditions may suffer as a result.

There are a truckload of threads on here about CID contracts. Originally it seemed that you had to have your own hours for the four consecutive years, i.e. none of it could be covering for anyone else, however from a variety of cases that have been brought (don't have any links to hand) some of the four years can be made up of cover leave positions. This was probably the case in your friend's situation.

Flecktarn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Well the important thing in getting a CID is that the years were consecutive and without a break, so it sounds like she did have her own hours over the 7 years interspersed with maternity leaves etc, that would give her grounds for a CID, but as you say the fact that she had to challenge it might mean bad blood between her and the principal. Not an easy one to manage, she obviously wants job security, but working conditions may suffer as a result.

So in essence it doesn't matter if she was subbing or had her own classes, the fundamental thing is that she was employed consecutively over 4 years yeah? *You cleared that up in your edit.

As for challenging it I'm not exactly sure what you mean? Do you mean that fact she had to go to the courts to get a CID instead of just being given it by the school, as if they didn't acknowledge her years in the school yes? Or the fact she had to go the route of getting CID? I don't quite understand that part.

rainbowtrout

Flecktarn wrote: »

So in essence it doesn't matter if she was subbing or had her own classes, the fundamental thing is that she was employed consecutively over 4 years yeah? *You cleared that up in your edit.

As for challenging it I'm not exactly sure what you mean? Do you mean that fact she had to go to the courts to get a CID instead of just being given it by the school, as if they didn't acknowledge her years in the school yes? Or the fact she had to go the route of getting CID? I don't quite understand that part.

Schools and VECs are supposed to give CID contracts at the beginning of the fifth year of employment. However some try to get out of this and use a variety of excuses to do so. Your friend possibly didn't challenge them until 7 years had passed and they saw no reason to give her a contract when she didn't ask for one. They might have used the maternity leaves as grounds for not giving her a contract. Many contracts now have grounds written into them outlining situations like this. They are usually called objective justifications. E.g. we don't count cover leave contracts as time notched up for a CID contract because they weren't your own hours, but it has been seen several times in the Labour Court that this has been overturned.

There was a situation in my school a few years back where a teacher had a small number of hours of her own, she had been brought in on a more casual basis but had been re-employed for 6 years running. She never had a written contract but no one else ever owned those hours. We got a CID for her even though there was no written contract, as being paid for the hours constituted a contract between the teacher and the employer, and there were payslips to prove it. By right she should have been given a CID after four years, but she had to chase it up.

Flecktarn

Ah right so basically you'll have to chase it up yourself, the school won't just offer one. I see.

Final question, so since she didn't get her CID until recently because she either didn't chase it up, so nothing happened or, was denied by the school since her maternity classes didn't count and then took it to the Labour Court?

Therefore, technically she should have got it after the 4 years but because of the objective justifications the school said no so therefore, she had to force the school into giving her one via the Labour Court, since they took the maternity years as being proper teaching years?

rainbowtrout

Flecktarn wrote: »

Ah right so basically you'll have to chase it up yourself, the school won't just offer one. I see.

Final question, so since she didn't get her CID until recently because she either didn't chase it up, so nothing happened or, was denied by the school since her maternity classes didn't count and then took it to the Labour Court?

Therefore, technically she should have got it after the 4 years but because of the objective justifications the school said no so therefore, she had to force the school into giving her one via the Labour Court, since they took the maternity years as being proper teaching years?

Possibly. Hard to know without all the details. For instance in my VEC, the principal is supposed to put down on paper towards the end of the school year those who are due CIDs when we come back in September, I suppose this gives the VEC the summer to sort out the contracts for them. So in most cases it happens automatically. In other cases, perhaps in this one, they felt your friend wasn't entitled to one on those grounds and didn't give her one, she felt she was and maybe pursued it through her union. Sometimes it doesn't have to go any further than the union. Maybe she wasn't successful going this route so had to take it further.

Another issue which can arise is that the CID is based on the hours you are on in your fourth year. So if she was on 3 hours for each of the first three years and on 15 hours in her fourth year, her CID should be for 15 hours and this is the minimum amount of hours she is guaranteed under the CID contract in future years. If however those 15 hours consist of 12 hours teaching Maths and 3 hours learning support, a school/VEC might have an objection to a 15 hour contract as the three hours may not be guaranteed to exist in the future, e.g. they are not hours awarded to the school, but are allocated to a specific child for support for dyslexia or something. If the child leaves the school (which they will at the very least after the Leaving Cert) or before if they drop out or move school, the hours go with them. So schools might object to those hours being included in a CID contract. As your friend had remedial hours, they could have been of this nature. In the example I've given a school might only want to award a contract for 12 hours.

I have seen contracts for teachers that are not yet entitled to CIDs which state something along those lines '15 hours English and 2.5 hours Resource' probably for that specific reason. It's a minefield to say the least.

Flecktarn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

So in most cases it happens automatically. In other cases, perhaps in this one, they felt your friend wasn't entitled to one on those grounds and didn't give her one, she felt she was and maybe pursued it through her union. Sometimes it doesn't have to go any further than the union. Maybe she wasn't successful going this route so had to take it further.

Are they allowed to do so though, just deny them. I looked it up a bit and this interested me.

Under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003, employers cannot continually renew fixed term contracts. Employees can only work on one or more fixed term contracts for a continuous period of four years. After this the employee is considered to have a contract of indefinite duration (e.g. a permanent contract).

(Link)

Seems as if there was definitely friction since she did go to the courts in the end and the fact she was waiting more than the four years. Tricky stuff.

The times to do with the remedial you were saying don't seem to matter though as one year she was teaching Maths from first to sixth year and is teaching the same this year.

In summary I think it goes like this: She worked four years with some maternity, the school denied the CID since the objective justifications and so she brought it to the Labour Court and they granted her the CID as the maternity years were still counted as 4 years experience. That's it I think.

rainbowtrout

We really don't know what their reasons were, but they could have written it into her contracts that the remedial work was an objective justification for not awarding a CID. I'm only speculating based on my own experience (dealt with this for a year as union rep).

That employment act also mentions reasons that contracts may not be awarded such as cover leave although this has been overturned in many cases.

The other thing is: schools might be public service employers, but just like private sector employment, sometimes employees have to chase up what they are entitled to and have to push for it. It's unfortunate but it does happen.

At least channels like union support and the Labour Court are there for such cases.

Flecktarn

Cheers for all that rainbowtrout, have my head around it now. I've heard great things about your book as well!

rainbowtrout

Flecktarn wrote: »

Cheers for all that rainbowtrout, have my head around it now. I've heard great things about your book as well!

Thanks, it appears that a number of teachers know me from boards!

solerina

As for the board of management, it would be standard procedure for the principal to be on the board of management

The Principal is never actually on the BOM, he/she usually acts as the secretary to the board (but cant usually vote, etc)