CID v Permanent

Feeded

how do secondary teachers feel about the CID v Permanent issue?

After speaking with an ASTI rep recently, i was informed that the CID is
just another way of ensuring permanency for teachers. That's fine but a friend of mine who teaches in a similar kind of school to mine, was made permanent last week, after 3 years of being in the school......

To be considered Permanent is different to being told your are on a contract of indefinite duration. Confidence, morale and the overall sense of belonging is boosted by Permanent status....you are part of the furniture.

I'm in my school ten years. I have a CID. I will never have Permanent status because if CID meant the same it would be CALLED Permanent.

Does anyone else feel the same way?

(.....and nobody better say "you're lucky to have a job!"...)

gaeilgegrinds1

I hear ya on this one. Why are there the two names I wonder? I always feel silly when asked am I permanent saying no I've a CID. Nobody in our place has been made permanent in AGES, probably a rather simple explanation but it has never been explained to me!

TheDriver

This has been discussed at length here before and a lot of different views on it. Unions will tell you its the same but with hard times upon us, it remains to be seen how CIDs pan out. It is my understanding that as a CID, hours are yours IF they are there. So the question remains if you are a French teacher and numbers go down and French hours are no longer in the school, then what happens to you?

gaeilgegrinds1

My contact makes that clear, IF hours are there. Now as I'm the most senior Irish teacher it means unless the school closes I have hours I suppose, but still not really the same!

TheDriver

thanks Gaeilgegrinds1, your the first to admit to this statement. CID is not permanent but damn close to it and was great when hours were plentiful. But what happens when the hours start drying up and I am sure we will get our first CID being let go case soon............

Feeded

Right. . .so if the hours are there, all CID holders have the same rights as a permanent member of staff. But i think it's down to management in many cases. They need to argue the case for making people permanent. There's someone in my school who is there since 2009 and it looks like there might finally be a permanent position as 6 permanent teacher retired in June. . .lumpsumitis! So this person might be lucky and receive permanent status before the rest of us. . . Not a great feeling i have to admit.

TheDriver

thats debateable, with all the CIDs in schools, they can't make anyone permanent because you are at full quota. In theory, PWT must be advertised and then someone from outside could get it. Then you are overquota and then the hours for a CID are gone so the CID person is let go the following year. Hence why management don't push for PWT posts. Staffing is a nightmare, juggling the numbers

TheDriver

Feeded wrote: »

Right. . .so if the hours are there, all CID holders have the same rights as a permanent member of staff.

Nope, PWT must have their timetable filled first because they have to be kept on, then CIDs get the rest because if there are no hours, a CID can be let go or transferred depending on the type of school.
It wouldn't make sense having a CID teaching all the Maths hours and a PWT Maths teacher not having a full timetable (simple case of both havnig no other subject)

Feeded

TheDriver wrote: »

Nope, PWT must have their timetable filled first because they have to be kept on, then CIDs get the rest because if there are no hours, a CID can be let go or transferred depending on the type of school.
It wouldn't make sense having a CID teaching all the Maths hours and a PWT Maths teacher not having a full timetable (simple case of both havnig no other subject)

Hi TheDriver...thanks for your post because this issue really bugs me and i'm learning a nice bit.. and if you could bear with me a little longer, i'd be well pleased....i know this was discussed at length earlier but i'm only new to the boards.

In my school, CIDs on 22 hours are thrown in with the Permanent members of staff when the tiimetable is being developed each year. The remaining hours are then given to the remaing teachers; usually those teachers who have just joined the school in the last year or so....they're pro-rata employees who are hoping to eventually get a CID.

As i work on the timetable each year, I see the letters that come from the department and it might have something like 19.35 teachers....so that's 19.35 multiplied by 22 hours.....i'm not taking into account the concessions and all of the other bits and bobs...but let's look at the 19.35 for a minute:
it never states how many are permanent and how many are CID so my main issue is....if they don't see it when they're allocating teaching hours, where is the problem in calling those 22 hr CID contracts Permanent, especially when those teachers in those 22-hours-contracts have been there for 10 to 15 years teaching subjects that will never have a problem with numbers ?

TheDriver

its a right vague area to be honest. We had a visit from the VEC last year when cutbacks started, ensuring all PWT staff had their full hours. The schools allocation is in hours but timetabling is expected to fill all those who are being paid for those hours i.e. PWT and CID. You are lucky in that you have more hours than PWT and CIDs combined. But comprehend a school where there are more PWT and CIDs than there are hours due to falling numbers etc. Then it would seem logical that PWT be filled first and then CIDs. If there happened to be not enough for the CIDs even after resource allocation etc, then a problem arises as more hours are being paid for in the school than are allocated by the Dept/VEC. Its an issue which hasn't really arisen much yet but I think in future years, we could be seeing a lot more. There are some schools I am watching to see what happens.
In your school, ye have lot more hours than jobs so ye can afford to easily put PWT and CID in together, something we all do at the moment. However, imagine those FTC people get CIDs, suddenly you have more CIDs without realising. Its a nightmare for us in management because you haven't hired PWT staff but you still have a lot of teachers who are "entitled" to hours.
Remember staffing is the job of Principal and Management, and allocate those jobs into the hours allocation

Feeded

TheDriver wrote: »

its a right vague area to be honest. We had a visit from the VEC last year when cutbacks started, ensuring all PWT staff had their full hours. The schools allocation is in hours but timetabling is expected to fill all those who are being paid for those hours i.e. PWT and CID. You are lucky in that you have more hours than PWT and CIDs combined. But comprehend a school where there are more PWT and CIDs than there are hours due to falling numbers etc. Then it would seem logical that PWT be filled first and then CIDs. If there happened to be not enough for the CIDs even after resource allocation etc, then a problem arises as more hours are being paid for in the school than are allocated by the Dept/VEC. Its an issue which hasn't really arisen much yet but I think in future years, we could be seeing a lot more. There are some schools I am watching to see what happens.
In your school, ye have lot more hours than jobs so ye can afford to easily put PWT and CID in together, something we all do at the moment. However, imagine those FTC people get CIDs, suddenly you have more CIDs without realising. Its a nightmare for us in management because you haven't hired PWT staff but you still have a lot of teachers who are "entitled" to hours.
Remember staffing is the job of Principal and Management, and allocate those jobs into the hours allocation

ahhh....yes, i see what you mean....we are fortunate at the minute but i totally see where you're coming from....."entitlements" can easily get in the way when it comes to planning...a proper minefield.......

gaeilgebeo

I'm so glad this topic is being revisited as it has been itching away at me since I got my CID a few years back. Since then, we have had 11 permanent members of staff retire/move to another school by choice. Nobody has been made permanent and a handful have gotten CIDs.

My understanding of it is(and I have questioned this with both my principal and HR in the VEC) is that there is another "step up" after CID which is permanency. I don't believe all the waffle that it's the same thing!

The VEC have put the spin on it, that its the same thing etc etc but I'm not buying it!

In a neighbouring county, I have heard of a girl who was "let go" from a school despite having a CID because of numbers. She took a case and very quickly won it!

I would imagine that the school would have to exhaust all avenues before letting you go. For example, lets say my subjects are history and geography, and there weren't enough history hours, they would have to give me geography hours, over someone RPT etc.... as well as any resource hours going.

And another statement I've heard time and time again, "last in, first out".

I just don't know what to believe anymore. The VECs seem to be most reluctant to make teachers permanent. :rolleyes:

Feeded

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

I'm so glad this topic is being revisited as it has been itching away at me since I got my CID a few years back. Since then, we have had 11 permanent members of staff retire/move to another school by choice. Nobody has been made permanent and a handful have gotten CIDs.

My understanding of it is(and I have questioned this with both my principal and HR in the VEC) is that there is another "step up" after CID which is permanency. I don't believe all the waffle that it's the same thing!

The VEC have put the spin on it, that its the same thing etc etc but I'm not buying it!

In a neighbouring county, I have heard of a girl who was "let go" from a school despite having a CID because of numbers. She took a case and very quickly won it!

I would imagine that the school would have to exhaust all avenues before letting you go. For example, lets say my subjects are history and geography, and there weren't enough history hours, they would have to give me geography hours, over someone RPT etc.... as well as any resource hours going.

And another statement I've heard time and time again, "last in, first out".

I just don't know what to believe anymore. The VECs seem to be most reluctant to make teachers permanent. :rolleyes:

i know exactly how you feel.....i'm in the voluntary secondary system...it's just not transparent enough.

I think it's an Irish thing - "sure you'll have a grand permanent job in teaching" and it's the anxiety that's attached around not being valued enough to earn that permanent position..............and that's just it...i do indeed value my CID....but it's down to being valued long-term......we want the state to value what we do....not wrap our job status up in some union/DES-friendly jargon......

TheDriver

at last a thread where people are realistic about whats happening with CIDs and most importantly, its not permanent. Schools have to exhaust all avenues but at the end of the day, if someone has to go, it will be a CID if all thats left is PWT. Unions will have you believe that its as good as PWT but in reality, its down to the Dept if a fight is on your hands

rainbowtrout

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

I'm so glad this topic is being revisited as it has been itching away at me since I got my CID a few years back. Since then, we have had 11 permanent members of staff retire/move to another school by choice. Nobody has been made permanent and a handful have gotten CIDs.

My understanding of it is(and I have questioned this with both my principal and HR in the VEC) is that there is another "step up" after CID which is permanency. I don't believe all the waffle that it's the same thing!

The VEC have put the spin on it, that its the same thing etc etc but I'm not buying it!

In a neighbouring county, I have heard of a girl who was "let go" from a school despite having a CID because of numbers. She took a case and very quickly won it!

I would imagine that the school would have to exhaust all avenues before letting you go. For example, lets say my subjects are history and geography, and there weren't enough history hours, they would have to give me geography hours, over someone RPT etc.... as well as any resource hours going.

And another statement I've heard time and time again, "last in, first out".

I just don't know what to believe anymore. The VECs seem to be most reluctant to make teachers permanent. :rolleyes:

I'd say that varies from VEC to VEC. Sligo VEC had an advertisement in the paper at the start of the summer with a list of permanent jobs - positions that were already filled and there were 8-10 posts listed, so just making teachers permanent. 4 teachers were made permanent the same year in my school in Roscommon about 2 years ago and we are a very small VEC (only 3 second level schools).

However I do accept your point on the difference between CID and permanent. I was at a union (TUI) meeting last year and the question was asked about CID v permanent and the rep spoke about a case where a teacher was CID (didn't say where) and badgered management and the VEC she was working for, for a permanency. In the end they advertised the job as permanent and someone else got the job. Now he didn't go into the ins and outs of the case, but it didn't sound like constructive dismissal or anything like that, it was simply a case that someone with more experience/qualifications etc went for the interview and got it before her. She lost her job. So the moral of the story seemed to be 'if you have a CID, keep your mouth shut and be damn glad you have some security, permanency may happen in time, but if your hours/subject are under no immediate threat, don't rock the boat'.

Also my school had more cuts this year. We lost 3 teachers last year and two more this year. Of the remaining staff only 4-5 out of about 30ish are not CID or permanent. All but one are heading into their fourth year in the school and he has a specialist subject so won't be let go one way or the other. So conceivably next year we could have a full staff of permanent/CID staff which is not good for juggling timetables if subjects don't match up and we don't have the staff needed for a subject area. Two of the teachers in the school were redeployed at the end of the year, so they'll have half hours in our school and half hours in the other school. One was a CID on full hours, but there weren't many hours in her subject and the other will be CID in September, much the same scenario. Initial reaction was 'why didn't they just get rid of some of the part time staff so the CIDs didn't have to move, but some of the part timers teach specialist subjects (home ec, woodwork, that kind of thing) so letting them go wasn't feasible as someone would still have to teach the subjects.

Of course the redeployment of the CIDs in my school probably meant that part timers in the school they are going to have lost hours/jobs as a result. So I suppose the knock on effect of having nearly a full 'permanent' staff is that teachers in the neighbouring school in the VEC are losing jobs instead.

rainbowtrout

TheDriver wrote: »

at last a thread where people are realistic about whats happening with CIDs and most importantly, its not permanent. Schools have to exhaust all avenues but at the end of the day, if someone has to go, it will be a CID if all thats left is PWT. Unions will have you believe that its as good as PWT but in reality, its down to the Dept if a fight is on your hands

I agree. I think that clause in the CID, don't remember the exact wording but it's something along the lines of 'you will have a contract of indefinite duration as long as there are hours in your subject in your school', is very important. I think personally that it could be interpreted as 'if your subject goes and we need to make cuts and it has to come from CID staff, you could lose your job'. Now most schools will try and keep the CIDs mainly because they will porbably have a lot of cases taken and it's less hassle to keep a CID than a part timer if the time table can be juggled. But I would be interested to see how it would pan out in a school with falling numbers where the school ends up way above quota and some subjects are just not offered anymore. E.g. if you're an Art teacher and art is cut from the curriculum, you're not qualified in any other subject but you're CID, what happens? Keep the art teacher who can't teach anything else or keep the part time woodwork teacher who has a timetable full of woodwork?

To be honest, isn't CID just a rebranding of what used to be called Temporary Whole Time? TWTs had full hours, and security in their contracts in that part timers would be let go before them, but they weren't the same as permanent.

ulysses32

I think I haved posted to you lads on this topic before. I refer again to departmental circular 0055/2008:

5.1.1 For the purposes of calculating the number of serving teachers to whom there is an ongoing contractual obligation for any academic year, it is necessary to combine the number of permanent teachers with the number of CID teachers (expressed in wholetime equivalents). Based on the agreed definition of an employee on a contract of indefinite duration, those on contracts of indefinite duration have effectively the same tenure rights as a permanent teacher. The combination of permanent and contract of indefinite duration teachers will, in some instances, result in schools having a total number of teachers below, equal to or in excess of the number of approved permanent posts for the school.

Please take note of what is highlighted in bold above. This direct quote is completely unambiguous. I hve posted elsewhere on further proof from this departmental circular that PWT and CID are the same thing.

There doesn't seem to be any issue outside of the VEC sector regarding this issue, or at least I haven't come across one ( I am, as always, open to correction).

CID is not the same as TWT. TWT is the equivalent of fixed-term full hours. CID, as stated above, is the same as permanent.

I do know of schools who have been in seriously over quota positions for a number of years and at no stage have CID positions come in to question.

CIDs exist outside the education sector also and again the same conclusion has been drawn. CID=Permanent. I am curious as to why people seem unwilling to accept this?

TheDriver

"Tenure commonly refers to life tenure in a job and specifically to a senior academic's contractual right not to have their position terminated without just cause". I see what your saying but with cutbacks coming along and over quota, CId has rights etc until there are no hours left which in effect is just cause to terminate a contract.
Remember the Dept will find ways if needs be, as will VECs. As much as I would like to say CID=premanent, words such as effectively make me somewhat concerned.

Rosita

ulysses32 wrote: »

I think I haved posted to you lads on this topic before. I refer again to departmental circular 0055/2008:

5.1.1 For the purposes of calculating the number of serving teachers to whom there is an ongoing contractual obligation for any academic year, it is necessary to combine the number of permanent teachers with the number of CID teachers (expressed in wholetime equivalents). Based on the agreed definition of an employee on a contract of indefinite duration, those on contracts of indefinite duration have effectively the same tenure rights as a permanent teacher. The combination of permanent and contract of indefinite duration teachers will, in some instances, result in schools having a total number of teachers below, equal to or in excess of the number of approved permanent posts for the school.

Please take note of what is highlighted in bold above. This direct quote is completely unambiguous. I hve posted elsewhere on further proof from this departmental circular that PWT and CID are the same thing.

There doesn't seem to be any issue outside of the VEC sector regarding this issue, or at least I haven't come across one ( I am, as always, open to correction).

CID is not the same as TWT. TWT is the equivalent of fixed-term full hours. CID, as stated above, is the same as permanent.

I do know of schools who have been in seriously over quota positions for a number of years and at no stage have CID positions come in to question.

CIDs exist outside the education sector also and again the same conclusion has been drawn. CID=Permanent. I am curious as to why people seem unwilling to accept this?

I suppose the two obvious questions that need to be answered before accepting 'CID=Permanent' are 1) why is there the need for two categories if they are the same thing? and 2) why does the circular say "those on contracts of indefinite duration have effectively the same tenure rights as a permanent teacher" rather than simply "those on contracts of indefinite duration have effectively the same tenure rights as a permanent teacher."

To most people the word 'effectively' would tend to be used when something stops short of being de jure reality.

rainbowtrout

Rosita wrote: »

I suppose the two obvious questions that need to be answered before accepting 'CID=Permanent' are 1) why is there the need for two categories if they are the same thing? and 2) why does the circular say "those on contracts of indefinite duration have effectively the same tenure rights as a permanent teacher" rather than simply "those on contracts of indefinite duration have effectively the same tenure rights as a permanent teacher."

To most people the word 'effectively' would tend to be used when something stops short of being de jure reality.

Totally agree. I think the word 'effectively' makes all the difference to the interpretation of that sentence and is 'effectively' the get out clause the Dept/VECs could use should the need arise.

Feeded

......i agree......it can't possibly be the same thing.....as CID teachers, we need to keep stressing our desire for Permanent status with our unions......... because the word "effectively" is just another way of patronising us.......

rainbowtrout

Feeded wrote: »

......i agree......it can't possibly be the same thing.....as CID teachers, we need to keep stressing our desire for Permanent status with our unions......... because the word "effectively" is just another way of patronising us.......

Yep, and if CIDs were the same as permanency, then why are permanent positions still advertised? Why would a VEC or school chose to make a teacher permanent when they can leave them on CID? They must see a difference between them otherwise these jobs wouldn't be advertised they way they are.

gaeilgegrinds1

Effectively is indeed a seriously weak word...

ulysses32

I agree with the somewhat debated nature of the word "effective". My understanding of the word as per definition is "for all practical purposes". The haziness of the word would not stand up as an effective way of terminating a contract.

The arguments here are based on some form of conspiratorial supposition and not, it seems to me, on any real life situations. There were several labour court recommendations regarding CIDs in the HSE all of which fell down on the side of the employee. it must be remembered that this is employment law and not education law.

My reasoning as to why this has not become an issue to date is because it is not an issue. The circular on this also refers to options in the case of a new position arising in the school. It states quite clearly that all fixed term teachers need to be informed of the position, that existing CIDs could be "topped up" if the employees so wished or a permanent vacancy could be advertised. If CID meant anything other than permanency then surely the following sub section would include CID teachers:

3.2 Notification of Permanent Vacancies

3.2.1 Fixed-term teachers must be notified of the existence of a permanent vacancy. Management authorities should note the provisions of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term) Work Act, 2003 which at section 10.2 provides that the information regarding a vacancy “may be provided by means of a general announcement at a suitable place or undertaking or establishment”.


5.1.1 Where the combined number of permanent/CID teachers is less than the number of approved permanent posts (expressed in wholetime equivalents), the filling of a permanent post may arise. Where such a vacancy occurs, the employer shall apply the following options in the sequence shown to the filling of such posts:

(a) offer a CID where an existing fixed-term teacher qualifies for such in accordance with the terms of this circular; or

(b) submit the vacancy for filling by redeployment in accordance with agreed arrangements, or

(c) consider an opportunity, the qualification requirements of the post permitting, for a teacher employed on a CID in a part-time capacity to undertake additional hours up to but not exceeding full-time hours (see * below)

These options having been exhausted, any permanent post(s) remaining unfilled shall be advertised by the employer and filled through a formal recruitment process using the standard procedures and criteria for the filling of such posts including the filling of a part-time post on a permanent basis.


There is no way,given the existence of the statements highlighted above, that CID could be construed as anything other than permanent. The issue regarding certain VECs is however worrying as this does not appear to be the case across the other sectors.

I understand peope's concerns but they seem unfounded to me.

Rosita

ulysses32 wrote: »

I agree with the somewhat debated nature of the word "effective". My understanding of the word as per definition is "for all practical purposes". The haziness of the word would not stand up as an effective way of terminating a contract.

The arguments here are based on some form of conspiratorial supposition and not, it seems to me, on any real life situations. There were several labour court recommendations regarding CIDs in the HSE all of which fell down on the side of the employee. it must be remembered that this is employment law and not education law.

My reasoning as to why this has not become an issue to date is because it is not an issue. The circular on this also refers to options in the case of a new position arising in the school. It states quite clearly that all fixed term teachers need to be informed of the position, that existing CIDs could be "topped up" if the employees so wished or a permanent vacancy could be advertised. If CID meant anything other than permanency then surely the following sub section would include CID teachers:

3.2 Notification of Permanent Vacancies

3.2.1 Fixed-term teachers must be notified of the existence of a permanent vacancy. Management authorities should note the provisions of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term) Work Act, 2003 which at section 10.2 provides that the information regarding a vacancy “may be provided by means of a general announcement at a suitable place or undertaking or establishment”.


5.1.1 Where the combined number of permanent/CID teachers is less than the number of approved permanent posts (expressed in wholetime equivalents), the filling of a permanent post may arise. Where such a vacancy occurs, the employer shall apply the following options in the sequence shown to the filling of such posts:

(a) offer a CID where an existing fixed-term teacher qualifies for such in accordance with the terms of this circular; or

(b) submit the vacancy for filling by redeployment in accordance with agreed arrangements, or

(c) consider an opportunity, the qualification requirements of the post permitting, for a teacher employed on a CID in a part-time capacity to undertake additional hours up to but not exceeding full-time hours (see * below)

These options having been exhausted, any permanent post(s) remaining unfilled shall be advertised by the employer and filled through a formal recruitment process using the standard procedures and criteria for the filling of such posts including the filling of a part-time post on a permanent basis.


There is no way,given the existence of the statements highlighted above, that CID could be construed as anything other than permanent. The issue regarding certain VECs is however worrying as this does not appear to be the case across the other sectors.

I understand peope's concerns but they seem unfounded to me.

But all this achieves is to introduce a new term - 'fixed-term' teachers.

This definition of a 'fixed term employee is from emplymentrights.ie: Fixed Term Workers - A fixed term employee is someone who is employed under a contract which contains a specific start and end date or who is employed to carry out a specific task or project or the continuity of whose contract is contingent on a particular event such as the availability of continued funding from an external source.

Obviously there would be muich legal argument around what this means but the phrase "the continuity of whose contract is contingent on a particular event" certainly appears to lean towards the notion that CID/Fixed Term teachers (if we may use the terms interchangeably) are vulnerable to changing circumstances such as available hours.

It also outlines some rights that such people have and in certain cases it appears that some of the rights overlap with those of permanent teachers, but there still appears to be a distinction if only because of the dual terminology.

Your argument still fails to surmount the question of why the two terms exist at all if there is no difference.

And I think the fact that cases have had to go to court to make arguments weakens rather than strengthens the suggestion that CID = Permanent. It might be that these cases were successfully argued on individual merit and circumstance rather than with any implication for creating an equivalence between CID status and permanence in the broader sense.

ulysses32

Rosita wrote: »

Obviously there would be muich legal argument around what this means but the phrase "the continuity of whose contract is contingent on a particular event" certainly appears to lean towards the notion that CID/Fixed Term teachers (if we may use the terms interchangeably) are vulnerable to changing circumstances such as available hours.

They are in no way interchangeable. Fixed term= temporary. CID=indefinite. They are both defined as such in all legislation and circulars, Irish and otherwise.

For the record, there is no such thing as a permanent contract in the legal sense. There is what is known as a contract of continuous employment which has become known as a permanent contract; a CID contract is also a continuous employment contract.

They exist as different names because modern employment law demands standardised legislative terminology. CID allows for full-time permanency and most importantly, part-time permanency. This was not the case in the world of PWT/TWT/EPT/PT.

My argument is based on official circulars, international and national legislation. The other arguments here are based on "what ifs", "maybes" and hypothetical musings with no basis in fact.

It is also important, Rosita, that you realise the explicit legislative differences between fixed term contract and contract of indefinite duration. They are completely different entities. in the literature quoted above CID and permanency are used interchangeably. Fixed term is as you defined it.

EoghanRua

ulysses32 wrote: »

a) They are in no way interchangeable. Fixed term= temporary. CID=indefinite. They are both defined as such in all legislation and circulars, Irish and otherwise.


b) It is also important, Rosita, that you realise the explicit legislative differences between fixed term contract and contract of indefinite duration. They are completely different entities. in the literature quoted above CID and permanency are used interchangeably. Fixed term is as you defined it.

a) I beg to differ on this. You seem to be assuming that indefinite means forever and a day. It can simply mean an undefined time. It does not imply permanence.

b) In fairness to Rosita you were the one who put 'fixed term teachers' in bold in the previous posts. Why introduce it at all if it was irrelevant?

If CID and permanency are used interchangeably in what you have quoted then the following extract (I have retained your bolding):

5.1.1 Where the combined number of permanent/CID teachers is less than the number of approved permanent posts (expressed in wholetime equivalents), the filling of a permanent post may arise. Where such a vacancy occurs, the employer shall apply the following options in the sequence shown to the filling of such posts:

(a) offer a CID where an existing fixed-term teacher qualifies for such in accordance with the terms of this circular; or

(b) submit the vacancy for filling by redeployment in accordance with agreed arrangements, or

(c) consider an opportunity, the qualification requirements of the post permitting, for a teacher employed on a CID in a part-time capacity to undertake additional hours up to but not exceeding full-time hours (see * below)

These options having been exhausted, any permanent post(s) remaining unfilled shall be advertised by the employer and filled through a formal recruitment process using the standard procedures and criteria for the filling of such posts including the filling of a part-time post on a permanent basis.

could read as follows and mean exactly the same thing. Does it?

5.1.1 Where the combined number of permanent/CID teachers is less than the number of approved CID posts (expressed in wholetime equivalents), the filling of a CID post may arise. Where such a vacancy occurs, the employer shall apply the following options in the sequence shown to the filling of such posts:

(a) offer a permanent contract where an existing fixed-term teacher qualifies for such in accordance with the terms of this circular; or

(b) submit the vacancy for filling by redeployment in accordance with agreed arrangements, or

(c) consider an opportunity, the qualification requirements of the post permitting, for a teacher employed on a permanent contract in a part-time capacity to undertake additional hours up to but not exceeding full-time hours (see * below)

These options having been exhausted, any CID post(s) remaining unfilled shall be advertised by the employer and filled through a formal recruitment process using the standard procedures and criteria for the filling of such posts including the filling of a part-time post on a CID basis.

NB: "For the record, there is no such thing as a permanent contract in the legal sense. There is what is known as a contract of continuous employment which has become known as a permanent contract; a CID contract is also a continuous employment contract."

This remark of yours is irrelevant. We all know what we mean when we talk of a permanent contract i.e. security of tenure. That the contract uses the term 'continuous employment' in its text is a rather pedantic issue in the context of this discussion. It would be far more instructuve if you were to Rosita's fair question - which you have evaded on a few occasions - as to why there are two terms if there is no distinction?

ulysses32

ulysses32 wrote: »

For the record, there is no such thing as a permanent contract in the legal sense. There is what is known as a contract of continuous employment which has become known as a permanent contract; a CID contract is also a continuous employment contract.

They exist as different names because modern employment law demands standardised legislative terminology. CID allows for full-time permanency and most importantly, part-time permanency. This was not the case in the world of PWT/TWT/EPT/PT.

ER, this is my answer, as extracted from an earlier post.

It is not haughty to expect that we deal in facts regarding important issues.

Nothing I have mentioned here is irrelevant.I highlighted "fixed term" to show the distinction between its use and that of "CID/permanency" as it appears in the circular. Rosita decided they meant the same thing.It is important that such information is not misprepresented on a public forum as others may use it as a point of reference.

I agree with you on the definition of indefinite and this discussion will inevitably return to that line "effectively the same rights of tenure as a permanent teacher".

I read "effectively" as meaning the same in terms of practice,,
i.e. that it makes no difference. If it meant one could lose a job and one could not then that would be a difference in practice wouldn't it?

hairybro

ulysses32 wrote: »

They are in no way interchangeable. Fixed term= temporary. CID=indefinite. They are both defined as such in all legislation and circulars, Irish and otherwise.

For the record, there is no such thing as a permanent contract in the legal sense. There is what is known as a contract of continuous employment which has become known as a permanent contract; a CID contract is also a continuous employment contract.

They exist as different names because modern employment law demands standardised legislative terminology. CID allows for full-time permanency and most importantly, part-time permanency. This was not the case in the world of PWT/TWT/EPT/PT.

My argument is based on official circulars, international and national legislation. The other arguments here are based on "what ifs", "maybes" and hypothetical musings with no basis in fact.

It is also important, Rosita, that you realise the explicit legislative differences between fixed term contract and contract of indefinite duration. They are completely different entities. in the literature quoted above CID and permanency are used interchangeably. Fixed term is as you defined it.

Now, I personally agree that CIDs have good and secure tenure, but I'm not so sure that there is technically no such thing as a "permanent" contract, or at least that the word is never used. It is. Look at a contract for a PWT Lecturer in an IoT, for example (TUI website). Note that the word "permanent" is used in section 4 to describe the nature of the position. Compare that with a CID Lecturer in an IoT contract; section 4 makes no such reference to "permanent". The use of both terms "permanent" and "CID", and the fact that CIDs can and do apply for permanent positions when they arise, still leaves me a little unsure about the equivalency of CID and permanency. Effectively equal, yes. Absolutely equal, I'm still not convinced.

Even if a CID does offer the same security of tenure, I think that in the event of (likely?) compulsory redundancies, the old "last in first out" approach may be used. As CIDs have been almost exclusively awarded instead of permanent contracts in recent years, the newer CIDs would face the axe (after fixed-term, temporaries, etc.) ahead of more established permanent staff in any case, so it may be a moot point.

I'm also not sure that you can absolutely trust in past circulars and even legislation in this climate; we saw legislation passed to cut PS pay etc. when that suited the government (and I remember pay-related circulars on pay deals, which were subsequently reneged on). Who's to say that type of thing won't happen again if/when it suits them? The EU? Even if it helps (in their eyes) to stabilise the economy? Furthermore, if legislation were always black and white, we'd have fewer lawyers arguing (from the point of view of whoever is employing them) over the meaning of a word or comma placement. There has already been some mention of vague words and phrases used in CIDs that *might* allow them to be broken in exceptional circumstances.

Anyway, I think that the litmus test of CID vs. permanent will be if or when there are attempts to revoke CIDs, what the government does in response to any such attempt failing (new emergency legislation), etc. The very notion of security of tenure in the PS appears to be under threat anyway IMO, regardless of contract type. We will just have to wait and see.

Just my opinion, etc.
HB

Rosita

ulysses32 wrote: »

Nothing I have mentioned here is irrelevant.I highlighted "fixed term" to show the distinction between its use and that of "CID/permanency" as it appears in the circular. Rosita decided they meant the same thing. It is important that such information is not misprepresented on a public forum as others may use it as a point of reference.

No I didn't - please read my posts.

Here's what I wrote: Obviously there would be much legal argument around what this means but the phrase "the continuity of whose contract is contingent on a particular event" certainly appears to lean towards the notion that CID/Fixed Term teachers (if we may use the terms interchangeably) are vulnerable to changing circumstances such as available hours.

I clearly meant in the context of this discussion where it had been stated by others here - including people actually on CIDs - there circumstances were contingent on there being enough hours to sustain them. This is what was also stated about fixed term employees in that definition. That was the context in which I used the word 'interchangeably'.

I am going on what others are saying and I certainly do not have the knowledge of contract law to make the kind of leap that you attribute to me and would appreciate if my remarks could be kept in their original context and not distorted.

Toto Wolfcastle

I think I have fixed all the quotes. If I have made a mistake please PM me. Try to preview the posts to avoid confusion. Thanks.

implausible

Rainbow, I was surprised to hear of permanency being advertised in your VEC.

In the context of my present and previous VEC employers, the distinction is fairly clear. Existing permanent teachers have permanent contracts. Eligible people who started in the last 5ish years and who has completed their 4 years has been given a CID. The difference is almost universally regarded as semantic. I have not seen a 'permanent' job advertised in either VEC since CIDs came in. In fact, the term seems to have disappeared.

The term came into usage as a result of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 and as far as I can see, VECs jumped on this as an opportunity to bring in a long probation period and avoid overstaffing (this has obviously back-fired in many cases).

EoghanRua

deemark wrote: »

In the context of my present and previous VEC employers, the distinction is fairly clear. Existing permanent teachers have permanent contracts. Eligible people who started in the last 5ish years and who has completed their 4 years has been given a CID. The difference is almost universally regarded as semantic. I have not seen a 'permanent' job advertised in either VEC since CIDs came in. In fact, the term seems to have disappeared.

I have seen a number of jobs advertised in recent months and they were described as 'permanent'. Not sure if any were VEC jobs but the term has certainly not disappeared in the wider sense anyway.

To raise a question asked earlier again do you have any idea why two terms meaning exactly the same thing representing the precise terms and conditions and contract (if they in fact do) co-exist?

implausible

EoghanRua wrote: »

I have seen a number of jobs advertised in recent months and they were described as 'permanent'. Not sure if any were VEC jobs but the term has certainly not disappeared in the wider sense anyway.

To raise a question asked earlier again do you have any idea why two terms meaning exactly the same thing representing the precise terms and conditions and contract (if they in fact do) co-exist?

I thought my post clearly expressed that I was referring to two particular VECs...

The problem seems to be that individual VECs and schools are interpreting this term in their own way. The only explanation I could think of was the one I offered above in relation to these two VECs - that Permanent is the old term and CID replaces it.

Miss Lockhart

I was told by the TUI that CID came from European law, and comes into play when an employer fails to give permanency to someone (who is not covering for somebody else's work) after 4 years. You must be working those hours for 4 years first. A permanent contract can be given immediately if the employer is sure they want to hold on to the person right away.

Someone in my school was given a PWT contract by the VEC straight after her PGDE two years ago, so they are still on the go.

One issue has caused some unrest among CID staff on less than 18 hours in my school. They feel they should be given any suitable hours that arise to add on to their CID hours. Then, if they are still teaching those extra hours after 4 years their CID should be increased to the higher number of hours. At the moment temporary staff are being given hours that could have gone to CID staff so effectively CID staff on part time hours have no hope of gaining CID for full time hours.

EoghanRua

deemark wrote: »

I thought my post clearly expressed that I was referring to two particular VECs...

The problem seems to be that individual VECs and schools are interpreting this term in their own way. The only explanation I could think of was the one I offered above in relation to these two VECs - that Permanent is the old term and CID replaces it.

Indeed it was clear you were referring to two particular VECs which is why I mentioned that permanent jobs have not stopped being advertised in a wider sense.

I just thought it was important to note that on the basis that not everyone here will be applying for jobs in those two particular VECs. I thought it was better to keep the discussion broader.

Maybe I am missing something are VECs entitled to do solo-runs on these matters relating to contracts - does the Department of Education not have the say in that respect?

EoghanRua

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

One issue has caused some unrest among CID staff on less than 18 hours in my school. They feel they should be given any suitable hours that arise to add on to their CID hours. Then, if they are still teaching those extra hours after 4 years their CID should be increased to the higher number of hours. At the moment temporary staff are being given hours that could have gone to CID staff so effectively CID staff on part time hours have no hope of gaining CID for full time hours.

This seems to suggest a difference between CID and permanent contracts if it is the case that CID people are scrapping around for hours with temporary staff.

Miss Lockhart

EoghanRua wrote: »

This seems to suggest a difference between CID and permanent contracts if it is the case that CID people are scrapping around for hours with temporary staff.

Yes, but those on CID 18+ hours are treated exactly the same as permanent staff and other CID staff are treated the same in regard to their contract hours.

EoghanRua

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Yes, but those on CID 18+ hours are treated exactly the same as permanent staff and other CID staff are treated the same in regard to their contract hours.

Not sure if I understand this fully - is it fair to say that a person on CID is entitled only to the same proportion of salary as the proportion of hours they work?

And what happens the CID person if there are no hours available in their subject?

Miss Lockhart

EoghanRua wrote: »

Not sure if I understand this fully - is it fair to say that a person on CID is entitled only to the same proportion of salary as the proportion of hours they work?

I'm not sure what part of my post is unclear for you.

People on CID are entitled only to the same proportion of salary as the proportion of hours they work, but afaik, the exception is those on 18+ hours - they are paid for full time (22 hours). Obviously, this means the cost effective thing to do is give those on 18 hours 22 hours to teach if hours are available - and that is what happens in my school anyway.

The problem in my school is where, for example, a teacher on CID 14 hours English and History wants to be given any extra English/History hours that arise, and then if they still have those hours in 4 years, be given CID for all their hours. However, it seems that often temporary staff are give the extra hours, and then in 4 years they become CID for those hours. So we end up with a person on CID 14 hours English and History and a person on CID 5 hours English and History, instead of one person on 19 hours CID English and History.

EoghanRua wrote: »

And what happens the CID person if there are no hours available in their subject?

I don't know any school in which this has arisen so far. So, like other posters, I don't know whether CID could lose their job if a school could show that hours were no longer available.

ulysses32

EoghanRua wrote: »

And what happens the CID person if there are no hours available in their subject?

The same thing that happens the PWT person if there are no hours available in their subject.

That is the point!

EoghanRua

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I'm not sure what part of my post is unclear for you.

People on CID are entitled only to the same proportion of salary as the proportion of hours they work, but afaik, the exception is those on 18+ hours - they are paid for full time (22 hours). Obviously, this means the cost effective thing to do is give those on 18 hours 22 hours to teach if hours are available - and that is what happens in my school anyway.

The problem in my school is where, for example, a teacher on CID 14 hours English and History wants to be given any extra English/History hours that arise, and then if they still have those hours in 4 years, be given CID for all their hours. However, it seems that often temporary staff are give the extra hours, and then in 4 years they become CID for those hours. So we end up with a person on CID 14 hours English and History and a person on CID 5 hours English and History, instead of one person on 19 hours CID English and History.



I don't know any school in which this has arisen so far. So, like other posters, I don't know whether CID could lose their job if a school could show that hours were no longer available.

I never said any of your post was unclear. What I was referring to when I said I wasn't sure I fully understood was the role of a CID person.

Assuming what has been written is accurate and a person on CID might have only a few hours and be paid only that proportion of their salary then that is a very clear and important distinction between CID and 'Permanence'.

Ergo, CID and Permanent contracts are a bit like a horse and a zebra - though sharing many characteristics they are clearly not the same thing.
It seems remarkable that anyone could have claimed they were when something as essential to a job as hours workable and salary payment can be so different.

Now I understand why they have different terminology i.e. because they are different.

Miss Lockhart

EoghanRua wrote: »

Assuming what has been written is accurate and a person on CID might have only a few hours and be paid only that proportion of their salary then that is a very clear and important distinction between CID and 'Permanence'.

Ergo, CID and Permanent contracts are a bit like a horse and a zebra - though sharing many characteristics they are clearly not the same thing.
It seems remarkable that anyone could have claimed they were when something as essential to a job as hours workable and salary payment can be so different.

Now I understand why they have different terminology i.e. because they are different.

But there was always Permanent Part Time and CID for less than full hours is seemingly no different than that. Obviously if your CID is for part time hours then it is different to CID for full time hours. Salary payment for someone on CID 10 hours is exactly the same as somebody on PPT 10 hours.

implausible

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

The problem in my school is where, for example, a teacher on CID 14 hours English and History wants to be given any extra English/History hours that arise, and then if they still have those hours in 4 years, be given CID for all their hours. However, it seems that often temporary staff are give the extra hours, and then in 4 years they become CID for those hours. So we end up with a person on CID 14 hours English and History and a person on CID 5 hours English and History, instead of one person on 19 hours CID English and History.

That's mad! It sounds like the school is deliberately trying to hold onto an extra member of staff in this case, maybe for subbing or extra-curricular activities or the future possibility of more hours. What the school should be doing is giving the person with the shortfall the extra hours in the fourth year and letting the temporary person go; schools are being told to fully timetable every member of staff, hence the 18+ being paid for 22.

EoghanRua wrote: »

...a person on CID might have only a few hours and be paid only that proportion of their salary then that is a very clear and important distinction between CID and 'Permanence'.

Well, yes, that is the one definite difference - you don't need 22 hours for a CID.

implausible

EoghanRua wrote: »

Indeed it was clear you were referring to two particular VECs which is why I mentioned that permanent jobs have not stopped being advertised in a wider sense.

I just thought it was important to note that on the basis that not everyone here will be applying for jobs in those two particular VECs. I thought it was better to keep the discussion broader.

Maybe I am missing something are VECs entitled to do solo-runs on these matters relating to contracts - does the Department of Education not have the say in that respect?

The VECs are often a law onto themselves! The distinction (if any) between CID and permanent is being interpreted differently by different employers. That was the point I was tryingto make.

EoghanRua

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

But there was always Permanent Part Time and CID for less than full hours is seemingly no different than that. Obviously if your CID is for part time hours then it is different to CID for full time hours. Salary payment for someone on CID 10 hours is exactly the same as somebody on PPT 10 hours.

Obviously (I would have thought) when we are talking about permanent in the context of this discussion we mean PWT.

Naturally we can stress the similarities between the two but there is no way CID = PWT as has been claimed.

The inclusion of the word 'effectively' in the Dept of Ed circular was certainly not the result of sloppy prose but very deliberately chosen to distinguish between two situations that can have strong similarities but are in fact different.

It also answers the question the other poster steadfastly refused to tackle all day i.e. if they are exactly the same then why are they nominally different? Answer: They are nominally different because they are in fact different. Same reason we call a zebra a zebra rather than a horse.

Miss Lockhart

deemark wrote: »

That's mad! It sounds like the school is deliberately trying to hold onto an extra member of staff in this case, maybe for subbing or extra-curricular activities or the future possibility of more hours. What the school should be doing is giving the person with the shortfall the extra hours in the fourth year and letting the temporary person go; schools are being told to fully timetable every member of staff, hence the 18+ being paid for 22.

I'm not sure why they do it! Sometimes the extra hours only arose after the person was already CID. They took on a whole new person to cover the extra hours.

Miss Lockhart

EoghanRua wrote: »

Obviously (I would have thought) when we are talking about permanent in the context of this discussion we mean PWT.

Naturally we can stress the similarities between the two but there is no way CID = PWT as has been claimed.

The inclusion of the word 'effectively' in the Dept of Ed circular was certainly not the result of sloppy prose but very deliberately chosen to distinguish between two situations that can have strong similarities but are in fact different.

It also answers the question the other poster steadfastly refused to tackle all day i.e. if they are exactly the same then why are they nominally different? Answer: They are nominally different because they are in fact different. Same reason we call a zebra a zebra rather than a horse.

I don't think anyone claimed CID=PWT. I think they claimed CID=Permanent.

We have no evidence to suggest otherwise really - and I suppose we wont until someone tries to make a CID teacher redundant.

implausible

EoghanRua wrote: »

It also answers the question the other poster steadfastly refused to tackle all day i.e. if they are exactly the same then why are they nominally different? Answer: They are nominally different because they are in fact different. Same reason we call a zebra a zebra rather than a horse.

If 'the other poster' is me, I am not defending the messing that the Dept are up to with the wording of the definition. I think they should clarify the position and use one term. The term CID came from EU law and seeing as that is what we are bound by, it make sense that they should use it. Continuing to use a (legally) obsolete term to describe a new type of contract only causes confusion. By posting, I was merely offering examples of where there is no distinction made between the two and trying to rationalise why the two terms are used. Are they different

From a personal point of view, this issue directly affects me. I left a permanent job after 7 years and am currently going into my 4th year in my present school. I replaced a permanent member of staff, but I am not expecting to hear the magic word 'permanent'. My CID will do me fine, thank you very much! I don't care what the EU or the VEC or the Dept. calls it or if there are technical differences, to me it means permanent and I will be 'effectively' happy:cool:

implausible

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

...the extra hours only arose after the person was already CID. They took on a whole new person to cover the extra hours.

As far as I know, your CID is based on a certain amount of hours and can't be changed. That would explain why they had to do it.

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I don't think anyone claimed CID=PWT. I think they claimed CID=Permanent.

PWT = permanent whole time.

Miss Lockhart

deemark wrote: »

As far as I know, your CID is based on a certain amount of hours and can't be changed. That would explain why they had to do it..

A relative of mine working in another VEC originally had CID 16 hours. She later taught an extra 4 hours for 4 years and was then give CID for 20 hours.

deemark wrote: »

PWT = permanent whole time.

I know PWT is permanent whole time, but afaik there are people on Part Time contracts that are permanent too.