Was I entitled to allowances when covering maternity leave?

rose23

Hi all,

I covered a maternity leave last year (22 hours, basically 2 weeks short of the full school year).

When I received my first pay check I noticed that I wasnt getting my allowances (degree & dip). When chatting to some colleagues about pay etc they had a section on payslip noting there allowances pay, whereas mine didnt.

When I rang the VEC they told me I wasnt entitled to it when covering a Maternity Leave. Im a NQT so I just accepted that. However talking to my friend recently who was in the same situation and got paid her allowances I went to the ASTI website and it seems that I was entitled to it.

Especially now with this new circular out about allowances I am anxious to do something about this. Can I go ring the VEC now and discuss this with them or is this too late?

Any feedback would be appreciated!

flatbackfour

rose23 wrote: »

Hi all,

I covered a maternity leave last year (22 hours, basically 2 weeks short of the full school year).

When I received my first pay check I noticed that I wasnt getting my allowances (degree & dip). When chatting to some colleagues about pay etc they had a section on payslip noting there allowances pay, whereas mine didnt.

When I rang the VEC they told me I wasnt entitled to it when covering a Maternity Leave. Im a NQT so I just accepted that. However talking to my friend recently who was in the same situation and got paid her allowances I went to the ASTI website and it seems that I was entitled to it.

Especially now with this new circular out about allowances I am anxious to do something about this. Can I go ring the VEC now and discuss this with them or is this too late?

Any feedback would be appreciated!

When did you start the maternity leave.

If if is in September you would be entitled to allowances I think it is after 150 hours you worked.

Allowances such as your Hdip/masters point on increment etc.

I would need to know your details more but it sounds like you got completely shafted.

rose23

flatbackfour wrote: »

When did you start the maternity leave.

If if is in September you would be entitled to allowances I think it is after 150 hours you worked.

Allowances such as your Hdip/masters point on increment etc.

I would need to know your details more but it sounds like you got completely shafted.

I started work on the first day of school and my contract finished mid May. Im pretty sure I didnt get any allowances (seen as it wasnt printed seperately on my payslip as it was on others&also the VEC telling me I wasnt entitled to it). I did start on point 3 of the old scale as I had worked unqualified pre January 2011.

I was working for a VEC last year if that makes any difference I dont know.

flatbackfour

rose23 wrote: »

I started work on the first day of school and my contract finished mid May. Im pretty sure I didnt get any allowances (seen as it wasnt printed seperately on my payslip as it was on others&also the VEC telling me I wasnt entitled to it). I did start on point 3 of the old scale as I had worked unqualified pre January 2011.

I was working for a VEC last year if that makes any difference I don't know.

No it does not as you were unqualified.


Can you get me your payslip and tell me your hourly rate? And also what allowences you think you should be entitled to. PM me of you want.

I can do a quick calculation for you of what you should be getting hourly.

bdoo

Ring a union on Monday. I suspect you didn't join one as you were only there for the year which is very common but very foolhardy. TUI would be the one for VEC sector.

RealJohn

I'm no expert on pay but I imagine that if those hours were considered substitute hours then you might not be entitled to your allowances but if it was a fixed term whole time contract lasting the duration of the maternity leave then you certainly should be.
I would also say that, while I don't know what the standard practice for maternity leave is, I'd consider it very bad form of a school/VEC to treat a whole year (almost) of maternity cover as substitution.

thefasteriwalk

rose23, I'd ring them straight away. I did my dip 2010/2011. Covered some classes from Sept. to Dec. which were Dept. paid so I had a payroll number pre-2011. This meant I was starting on the third point of the old payscle WITH allowances. I also covered a maternity leave in a VEC last year and I got all my allowances. This contract ended in March when I moved to a community school and I also got my allowances from the Dept. The only way that your VEC could be correct is if the hours you did pre-2011 were paid for privately/by the school, but if you have a payroll number from Dept. pre-2011 I'd certainly be onto the VEC.

flatbackfour

RealJohn wrote: »

I'm no expert on pay but I imagine that if those hours were considered substitute hours then you might not be entitled to your allowances but if it was a fixed term whole time contract lasting the duration of the maternity leave then you certainly should be.
I would also say that, while I don't know what the standard practice for maternity leave is, I'd consider it very bad form of a school/VEC to treat a whole year (almost) of maternity cover as substitution.

http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/non-permanent-teachers/what-contract-do-you-have/non-casual-part-time-teacher/

Maternity leave as undertook by posters are non casual part time. She should have got allowances etc.

Seriously how are VECs allowed to get away with this kind of thing?

TheDriver

sometimes maternity is considered a qualified subbing rate and actually attracts a high hourly rate to make up for increments etc because you are not working the complete year and holiday pay is included. I'm thinking thats why there is no allowance etc on this

Miss Lockhart

Whether this was paid as salary or as subbing I'm certain you should have received your qualification allowances.

If it was subbing then you should have been on the "qualified non-casual" rate. This is defined as:

"A non-casual part-time teacher is appointed where there is a specific need for a teacher for less than a year but more than 150 hours in total in the year. For example, if you are covering for a teacher on maternity leave." (see asti website)

I can see no way you should have been paid as a casual sub which is defined as:

"A casual part time teacher is appointed where there is a casual need for hours to be covered. For example, where you are replacing a teacher on short-term sick leave." (see asti website)

The payment for a non-casual sub is calculated by finding your point on the scale, plus allowances, and dividing by 735 for your hourly rate.

I was paid on the non-casual sub hourly rate when I covered maternity leave for the VEC. This definitely included my allowances but they were not detailed separately on my payslip.

When I moved to my own hours pro-rata contract my payslip detailed "salary" and then each allowance separately.

Get on to your union immediately.

bdoo

flatbackfour wrote: »

RealJohn wrote: »

I'm no expert on pay but I imagine that if those hours were considered substitute hours then you might not be entitled to your allowances but if it was a fixed term whole time contract lasting the duration of the maternity leave then you certainly should be.
I would also say that, while I don't know what the standard practice for maternity leave is, I'd consider it very bad form of a school/VEC to treat a whole year (almost) of maternity cover as substitution.

http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/non-permanent-teachers/what-contract-do-you-have/non-casual-part-time-teacher/

Maternity leave as undertook by posters are non casual part time. She should have got allowances etc.

Seriously how are VECs allowed to get away with this kind of thing?

Employers get away with things like this when people in staffrooms talk about how unions are a waste of money and look out for themselves as individuals with no concern for colleagues.

Nobody in my school signs a contract before it's okayed by the union. It's not unknown for employers to sneak **** in.

flatbackfour

TheDriver wrote: »

sometimes maternity is considered a qualified subbing rate and actually attracts a high hourly rate to make up for increments etc because you are not working the complete year and holiday pay is included. I'm thinking thats why there is no allowance etc on this

The rate you seem to be referring to does include your incremental level. It does not make up for it. If her payslip has an hourly rate that is based on her incremental level and qualifications allowances then she is okay. If she is at qualified hourly substitute rate she is being scammed.