redeployment-croke park deal

floating voter

anyone selected for redeployment under terms of croke park deal?

anyone here of someone that was selected?

closing date 4th march for staff to be notified.

rainbowtrout

A friend of mine volunteered to be redeployed. Her school are 1 over quota and everyone is permanent.

Don't know if my school is over quota or not, we usually are but we weren't told anything about it. I read the union/department websites myself regularly to keep myself up to date.

Toto Wolfcastle

rainbowtrout wrote: »

A friend of mine volunteered to be redeployed. Her school are 1 over quota and everyone is permanent.

Does she have somewhere specific in mind to be redeployed to, a different county maybe or a different part of the county? Or is it just luck of the draw? (Although I presume someone wouldn't volunteer to be redeployed if they didn't have a clue where they would be sent to.) Is there a limit as to how far someone can be moved?

floating voter

50 km from your house or school.

rainbowtrout

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

Does she have somewhere specific in mind to be redeployed to, a different county maybe or a different part of the county? Or is it just luck of the draw? (Although I presume someone wouldn't volunteer to be redeployed if they didn't have a clue where they would be sent to.) Is there a limit as to how far someone can be moved?

floating voter wrote: »

50 km from your house or school.

She's choosing 50km from her house as she lives in Roscommon and teaches in Dublin.... of course this all assumes that a job comes up in this part of the country before September.

Pwpane

Notice that someone can be redeployed into a temporary position such as maternity leave -

The applicable vacancies for the purposes of the Redeployment Scheme are all permanent and temporary
vacancies in whole or part posts, save where such posts cannot be deemed a vacancy by operation of law

What happens to you then?

Anyone have any up-to-date info on this?

rainbowtrout

Well under the CPA if you are being redeployed and are permanent you get to keep your permanency, have no idea how it would work with maternity leaves

sjms

I'm really weary of this. I am currently doing the PDGE and I have an interview for a post in my school in May as my old teacher (yes, I attended that school too) is going on maternity leave. I just feel totally clueless to what will happen now. The teacher going on maternity leave has told me that it is all subject to redeployment!

Am I correct in thinking that if there is nobody with th required subjects to be redeployed I am still in the running? It so funny how things have changed since I was in school to now... :mad:

I just home I am lucky!! EVERYTHING CROSSED!

floating voter

Nothing to panic about by the sounds of things.
School you went to gives you placement for dip, Maternity leave coming up and you are well in by the sounds of it. Only problem for you is this pesky croke park redeployment.

Seems like you are well got in that school and they will find something for you.

Premier Girl

Hi all. I am looking for some advice as I cant get through to my union. (tui) I am currently in my third consective year on an RPT contract. My principal has told me about the redeployment and CPA ect. Where do I stand as regards my job being a vancacy. Do I just end up with no job one year away from my CID? I am really upset and worried.

floating voter

If your hours are actual hours, your own hours, and they are continuing then you will probably be OK. You are protected by fixed term work act and asti are on record as saying they will vigoursly defend such teachers. See link. Government are saying they wont be bound by this.
http://www.asti.ie/croke-park-agreement-how-will-it-work/


some information here also.
http://www.tui.ie/Investing_in_Education__TUI_Education_Conference/Default.1041.html

It all hinges on what kind of contract you have and the wording of your fixed term contract. Share in general terms if you want further opinion.

linguist

The whole situation is a disgrace and it's time us RPTs made our voices heard before the damage is done and not after. Basically, I entirely agree with floating voter. The relevant legislation is 100% clear that if you've done more than one year and your job is viable, you enjoy the same protection from unfair dismissal as any permanent employee. With respect to posters from the VEC sector who have disagreed with this assessment before, the difference is that you are appointed to your scheme so the considerations are bigger than the circumstances of your own school. For those of us employed by a school board of management, floating voter's analysis is the one backed up by law.

That said, the Department of Education has said that it is prepared to try to displace such RPT teachers anyway. What kind of government body deliberately sets out to dishonour a cornerstone peace of labour law? What sort of government stands by and allows officials to act in a manner that could easily end up in the Four Courts costing the state huge amounts in compensation? The law of the land is not an optional extra and the country cannot afford such recklessness. Can I therefore suggest that once the new government is in place, those of us potentially affected get up off our backsides (with respect!) and contact our TDs to demand that the new government stops this nonsense before it starts.

Secondly, can I make a sincere, constructive request? At this stage, schools have had to select people to be redeployed. Can people please post here the details that they have whilst protecting the anonymity of the school and those affected. It would be nice to know the area the school is in and the subjects of those deemed surplus to requirements. I imagine that some subject areas (Physics, Chemistry, Economics...) might be more surplus than others (Irish, French...) but that is guesswork. By trying to paint the picture here we can at least give people some idea of how vulnerable they might or might not be. Sorry for the long post, but this is a difficult and emotive issue so I'm venting a little!:-)

floating voter

Vent away!

It is my understanding that

a) anyone RPT for one year or less is in trouble no matter what.
b) anyone in second and third year could be safe because of labour law. But govt intend to try to displace these people.
c) anyone in fourth year who will be entitled to a cid next year is safe.
d) anyone on fourth year or more, not entitled to a cid. in trouble no matter what.

Is it correct to say you think straight BOM employed teachers will be ok but not 2nd and 3rd yrs contracted to a vec scheme.

If this is so what is informing your thinking?

I am VEC and all part timers called to a meeting tomorrow. Squeaky bum time.

sorry about long post also.

linguist

I wouldn't necessarily worry about the meeting. We had one and it was very much information and actually reassurance. We all give out about management I'm sure, but on this occasion they made us feel wanted and needed. The impression I have is that principals and management bodies agree with your and my interpretation of this and there's actually an attitude of 'when are the unions going to get their act together and challenge this?'

As regards VECs, here's the way I see it. You are employed by your scheme. So let's imagine you teach English and Irish. If the scheme is over quota, it's basically like the school being over quota but on a bigger scale. So if decisions had to be made about who to let go, then your job could be on the line if a permanent teacher (who is short on hours maybe) with your subjects could be moved in to do it. That is your employer (the VEC) managing their resources in accordance with law. The same could apply to any non CID teacher in any school. If the job is not viable, your contract cannot be renewed.

As regards redeployment, my personal position would be this. I am not VEC, My school is not over quota. I have an RPT contract, two years done and my job is perfectly viable. Therefore, I should have a legal entitlement to my job. Moving a permanent/CID person into my school to do my job would be unfair dismissal. That's my view of it.

rainbowtrout

linguist wrote: »

As regards VECs, here's the way I see it. You are employed by your scheme. So let's imagine you teach English and Irish. If the scheme is over quota, it's basically like the school being over quota but on a bigger scale. So if decisions had to be made about who to let go, then your job could be on the line if a permanent teacher (who is short on hours maybe) with your subjects could be moved in to do it. That is your employer (the VEC) managing their resources in accordance with law. The same could apply to any non CID teacher in any school. If the job is not viable, your contract cannot be renewed.

As regards redeployment, my personal position would be this. I am not VEC, My school is not over quota. I have an RPT contract, two years done and my job is perfectly viable. Therefore, I should have a legal entitlement to my job. Moving a permanent/CID person into my school to do my job would be unfair dismissal. That's my view of it.

As regards redeployment, my personal position would be this. I am not VEC, My school is not over quota. I have an RPT contract, two years done and my job is perfectly viable. Therefore, I should have a legal entitlement to my job. Moving a permanent/CID person into my school to do my job would be unfair dismissal. That's my view of it.

But redeployment within a VEC has always existed before CPA. It happened in my VEC last year. Your description of it is very good, but if the scheme is over quota and there are both permanent teachers and RPT teachers within a VEC then the RPT teachers will be ones to be given the boot.

This can happen without CPA which I think is somewhat muddying the waters. If a VEC is over quota they are not going to let go an RPT teacher and take in a redeployed permanent teacher from elsewhere, because then they will still be over quota.


My reading of it is under CPA vacant positions will be filled first by redeployed teachers before they can be advertised. An RPT position is not vacant, it is a job held by someone.

Like your own position above, you are in the job 2 years, it is not vacant nor is the status of your job changing so it shouldn't be advertised.

I think where the problem will arise is that in schools/VECs that are over quota and have to let go/redeploy teachers, permanent teachers will get first preference for redeployment because they have to be employed, but former RPT teachers might just find themselves on the dole because there is no work for them if their position is no longer viable. It doesn't mean someone else will take their place. No one will take their place if the school is over quota and only comes in on quota as a result of letting go a part time teacher.

linguist

Agreed on most points rainbowtrout. However, the problem is that schools have been obliged to notify the Department of all vacancies, including posts currently held by RPTs who are not due a CID. Those posts are, at this moment, formally considered to be vacant.

Everything you've said about the rights of RPTs should hold, but it's the manner in which the Department is going about this and the needless anxiety and uncertainty being caused to RPTs that is really unfair. Hence my call on people to contact their TDs once we have a new government tomorrow to get the Department to call the dogs off and proceed in a fair and legal manner.

gaeilgebeo

linguist wrote: »

Agreed on most points rainbowtrout. However, the problem is that schools have been obliged to notify the Department of all vacancies, including posts currently held by RPTs who are not due a CID. Those posts are, at this moment, formally considered to be vacant.

Everything you've said about the rights of RPTs should hold, but it's the manner in which the Department is going about this and the needless anxiety and uncertainty being caused to RPTs that is really unfair. Hence my call on people to contact their TDs once we have a new government tomorrow to get the Department to call the dogs off and proceed in a fair and legal manner.

I am slightly confused by your breakdown of things.
Our CEO said that ALL RPT jobs are vacant.
If a permanent Maths teacher is no longer needed in a school, they can take the position of an RPT maths teacher in another.
He was very straight cut about it.
The redeployment scheme is also cross-sector schoolwise.
Teachers can be redeployed from VEC to Secondary to Community schools etc...

Premier Girl

floating voter wrote: »

If your hours are actual hours, your own hours, and they are continuing then you will probably be OK. You are protected by fixed term work act and asti are on record as saying they will vigoursly defend such teachers. See link. Government are saying they wont be bound by this.
http://www.asti.ie/croke-park-agreement-how-will-it-work/


some information here also.
http://www.tui.ie/Investing_in_Education__TUI_Education_Conference/Default.1041.html

It all hinges on what kind of contract you have and the wording of your fixed term contract. Share in general terms if you want further opinion.

My hours are my own and have been for three years (thats including this current year). My principal told me he will support me as much as possible but he must give details of my job as a vancancy. Anyone know TUI's view on this?. They don't make things very clear on their website and won't anwer phone / reply to e-mails.

linguist

Yes. On the first point, that is what happens in the VEC and as rainbowtrout points out always has. The only difference this year is the cross-sectoral dimension, which means that the VECs have to coordinate what they're doing with everyone else. They can't start advertising jobs or refilling RPT positions until the whole system has cleared.

As regards the cross-sectoral dimension, this is important. VEC redeployments will first be done within the VECs, voluntary schools within voluntary schools and C&C within C&C. It will only go cross sectoral if and when the first approach is exhausted.

On a positive note, I would expect at least some of the people to be redeployed, certainly in voluntary schools and C&C, to retire instead. Many of these will be very senior teachers I would imagine. Also, routine retirements in schools will bring at least some of them back into quota. The final outcome may not be anything as bad as some might think.

gaeilgebeo

Premier Girl wrote: »

My hours are my own and have been for three years (thats including this current year). My principal told me he will support me as much as possible but he must give details of my job as a vancancy. Anyone know TUI's view on this?. They don't make things very clear on their website and won't anwer phone / reply to e-mails.

As far as I know, your principal is right.
Your job is considered vacant under the redeployment scheme.
It's part of the Croke Park Agreement, therefore, I don't think the union can "do" anything about it.
A lot of teachers very upset in our school too.

linguist

Premier Girl, my reply above was to gaeilgebeo

The unions have not been good on this so far and TUI has been more vague than ASTI. However, I am quite friendly with one of the top people in TUI and she assures me that their stance on someone like you would be the same as ASTI. Having established the facts, they would fight your case in the courts if necessary. This is why I find the Department's stance so annoying. Our rights appear black and white in law, if we won cases we could be entitled to massive compensation if we'd been let go and the cost to the taxpayer could be far higher than if the Department had seen sense and stayed within the law in the first place. I share your frustration 100%, although frankly, I suspect you will be fine. Every year takes you further from the door!

NewHillel

linguist wrote: »

The relevant legislation is 100% clear that if you've done more than one year and your job is viable, you enjoy the same protection from unfair dismissal as any permanent employee.

I don't work in the public sector, but my understanding of the relevant leglislation (Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977–2007) is that your rights, wrt unfair dismissal, depend on whether you are on a permanent or temporary contract. The apropriate leglislation is correctly interpreted here.
The nub of this, as it applies to non-permanent staff is: "If an employee whose employment started after 14 July 2003 has been employed on 2 or more continuous fixed-term contracts, the total duration of those contracts may not exceed 4 years. "It is only after the four year period that the teacher has "the same protection from unfair dismissal as any permanent employee. "

To be clear, under the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977–2007 the School BOM must offer a teacher on a RPT position a CID, or let them go, after that four years. Even if the teacher in question is given a new temporary contract, in law they may as well have a CID. I suspect that is why some ASTI documentation makes explicit mention of teachers who are in their 4th year.

The ASTI site does not quote leglislation on the legal status of temporary staff. Instead, it quotes DES Circular 0034/2009. To my knowledge this does not have the force of law, as it is not enshrined in leglislation. I readily admit that I may be wrong in this, as my position is based on (first hand) knowledge of redundancy criteria in Industry, rather than in the public sector. However, the ASTI would need to document a much stronger legal position than they do in their web site.

rainbowtrout

linguist wrote: »

Agreed on most points rainbowtrout. However, the problem is that schools have been obliged to notify the Department of all vacancies, including posts currently held by RPTs who are not due a CID. Those posts are, at this moment, formally considered to be vacant.

Everything you've said about the rights of RPTs should hold, but it's the manner in which the Department is going about this and the needless anxiety and uncertainty being caused to RPTs that is really unfair. Hence my call on people to contact their TDs once we have a new government tomorrow to get the Department to call the dogs off and proceed in a fair and legal manner.

I wasn't aware of the RPT jobs being considered vacant. Without being flippant it's just daft. Hopefully common sense will prevail and people will not be pushed out of jobs that are not vacant.

linguist

The previous redeployment scheme for school closure accepted that people with more than one year's service could not be displaced. This is because they cannot be treated differently solely by virtue of the fact that they are on a fixed-term contract.

A fixed-term worker can be let go where the contract has expired and their role is no longer needed. They cannot be unfairly dismissed from a job that is viable solely because they are not permanent. After twelve months you are protected from unfair dismissal or unfair selection for redundancy. That's how I understand it.

Godge

linguist wrote: »

As regards redeployment, my personal position would be this. I am not VEC, My school is not over quota. I have an RPT contract, two years done and my job is perfectly viable. Therefore, I should have a legal entitlement to my job. Moving a permanent/CID person into my school to do my job would be unfair dismissal. That's my view of it.

Based on what piece of legislation?

The High Court has ruled that a fixed term employee has the same rights as a permanent employee except with regard to tenure. It is certainly arguable therefore that a permanent employee surplus to requirement can be kept on by redeployment at the expense of a fixed term employee as the tenure issue takes precedence.

MathsManiac

linguist wrote: »

The previous redeployment scheme for school closure accepted that people with more than one year's service could not be displaced. This is because they cannot be treated differently solely by virtue of the fact that they are on a fixed-term contract.

A fixed-term worker can be let go where the contract has expired and their role is no longer needed. They cannot be unfairly dismissed from a job that is viable solely because they are not permanent. After twelve months you are protected from unfair dismissal or unfair selection for redundancy. That's how I understand it.

That is assuming that each school / VEC is considered a completely independent employer. I imagine the DES will make the case that, as payer of salaries, it is entitled to treat the system more holistically: if all posts can be filled by moving permanent staff around in the system, then, in the terminology you have used, the fixed-term worker's contract has expired and they are no longer needed.

Godge

NewHillel wrote: »

I don't work in the public sector, but my understanding of the relevant leglislation (Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977–2007) is that your rights, wrt unfair dismissal, depend on whether you are on a permanent or temporary contract. The apropriate leglislation is correctly interpreted here.
The nub of this, as it applies to non-permanent staff is: "If an employee whose employment started after 14 July 2003 has been employed on 2 or more continuous fixed-term contracts, the total duration of those contracts may not exceed 4 years. "It is only after the four year period that the teacher has "the same protection from unfair dismissal as any permanent employee. "

To be clear, under the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977–2007 the School BOM must offer a teacher on a RPT position a CID, or let them go, after that four years. Even if the teacher in question is given a new temporary contract, in law they may as well have a CID. I suspect that is why some ASTI documentation makes explicit mention of teachers who are in their 4th year.

The ASTI site does not quote leglislation on the legal status of temporary staff. Instead, it quotes DES Circular 0034/2009. To my knowledge this does not have the force of law, as it is not enshrined in leglislation. I readily admit that I may be wrong in this, as my position is based on (first hand) knowledge of redundancy criteria in Industry, rather than in the public sector. However, the ASTI would need to document a much stronger legal position than they do in their web site.

An employer doesn't have to offer a CID if they have objective grounds to allow them to refuse - an example would be someone covering for a five-year career break.

Toni55

Hello,

I have read the thread but am unclear on a few things.

1. Can permanent teachers being redeployed replace teachers who are on part time contracts? i.e. not the full 22 hours.

2. Can permanent teachers be redeployed to take resource/learning support classes?

3. Do resource/learning support hours count towards a cid?

4. I teach irish but just studied it for year 1 in college. If i lose my job should i be able to get a job in it based on my experience or wil i have to study it to degree level?

gaeilgebeo

linguist wrote: »

The previous redeployment scheme for school closure accepted that people with more than one year's service could not be displaced. This is because they cannot be treated differently solely by virtue of the fact that they are on a fixed-term contract.

A fixed-term worker can be let go where the contract has expired and their role is no longer needed. They cannot be unfairly dismissed from a job that is viable solely because they are not permanent. After twelve months you are protected from unfair dismissal or unfair selection for redundancy. That's how I understand it.

This is definitely not the case Linguist.

gaeilgebeo

Toni55 wrote: »

Hello,

I have read the thread but am unclear on a few things.

1. Can permanent teachers being redeployed replace teachers who are on part time contracts? i.e. not the full 22 hours.

2. Can permanent teachers be redeployed to take resource/learning support classes?

3. Do resource/learning support hours count towards a cid?

4. I teach irish but just studied it for year 1 in college. If i lose my job should i be able to get a job in it based on my experience or wil i have to study it to degree level?

You are not a qualified Irish teacher, therefore, you won't be registered with the Teaching Council as one.
You will not be called for interview.
Things have really tightened up.

NewHillel

Godge wrote: »

An employer doesn't have to offer a CID if they have objective grounds to allow them to refuse - an example would be someone covering for a five-year career break.

You are correct, an employer doesn't have to offer a CID after four years. However, to comply with the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977–2007, if they don't they cannot legally offer another temporary contract.

Pjays

Hi guys, does anyone know when they will be announcing these moves?

I'm 3 years on an RPT contract and didn't realise this scheme would be affecting us all.

linguist

gaeilgebeo, to tell me I am wrong in seven words without explaining yourself isn't very impressive. It's actually pretty rude.

You appear to come from a VEC background. I and others have discussed the VEC situation at length and it is indeed the case that since you are employed by your scheme, it is considerably easier for an RPT teacher to lose their job there. I really don't fancy repeating everything I've said. Between myself, rainbowtrout and possibly others, it's been covered.

I, on the other hand, have a contractual relationship with my board of management. There are no grounds for my dismissal. The job I was engaged to do is still there and I am the incumbent. Certain posters would do well to remember that teachers (except in VECs) are employed by their board of management, not by the Dept of Education. Frankly gaeilgebeo, if you read the relevant legislation, you will see that workers with more than a year's service have the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act and they are basically entitled to their job if it is viable and their service is satisfactory. And my job with my employer is viable as will be the case for thousands of others.

linguist

Pjays, they hope to have the process complete by the end of May. Most people expect that this deadline is far too ambitious given that it's the first year of this and there are potentially a lot of people to redeploy. However, affected teachers, either those whose positions are under threat or those being redeployed, should be hearing over the next couple of months - probably during May - and you can expect the position of people like you or me on continuing RPT contracts to become clearer over that time.

peanuthead

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I wasn't aware of the RPT jobs being considered vacant. Without being flippant it's just daft. Hopefully common sense will prevail and people will not be pushed out of jobs that are not vacant.

I'm in complete agreement with this, this is absolute madness.

Godge

linguist wrote: »

gaeilgebeo, to tell me I am wrong in seven words without explaining yourself isn't very impressive. It's actually pretty rude.

You appear to come from a VEC background. I and others have discussed the VEC situation at length and it is indeed the case that since you are employed by your scheme, it is considerably easier for an RPT teacher to lose their job there. I really don't fancy repeating everything I've said. Between myself, rainbowtrout and possibly others, it's been covered.

I, on the other hand, have a contractual relationship with my board of management. There are no grounds for my dismissal. The job I was engaged to do is still there and I am the incumbent. Certain posters would do well to remember that teachers (except in VECs) are employed by their board of management, not by the Dept of Education. Frankly gaeilgebeo, if you read the relevant legislation, you will see that workers with more than a year's service have the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act and they are basically entitled to their job if it is viable and their service is satisfactory. And my job with my employer is viable as will be the case for thousands of others.

Firstly, I am assuming you are TWT or RPT with less than four years service.

Secondly, the Croke Park redeployment agreement could be seen as a collective agreement with unions that represent you and becomes an implied term of your contract which mean it supersedes the viability argument.

Thirdly, as a fixed term employee, you have no tenure rights.

linguist

Well what nobody has mentioned yet and it's important in my view is precedent.

In the redeployment agreement for school closures, it was accepted that redeployment was not possible into RPT jobs, except where the incumbent was in their first year. Nothing in labour law has changed in the meantime. I would reiterate that the unions and indeed the school management bodies believe that to displace people with more than a year's service is likely to be illegal under legislation. If this comes to a case all of these issues will be on the table including, surely, the precedent set by the school closure arrangements.

Godge, reading back over your earlier contribution regarding the High Court ruling, it is perfectly reasonable except for the fact that it ignores the specific nature of a teacher's contract. I am employed by my BOM and merely paid out of State funds. Were there a permanent employee and me, and only work for one of us, then clearly I would have to go. But there is no such person on our staff. Therefore no permanent employee of my employer is prejudiced by my being there, hence my job is viable and it is not vacant. The question of who the employer is is clearly in the background of this debate, but the Department would be hard pressed to claim that they are. The Board of Management put the ad in the paper, they interviewed me, they employed me.

solerina

This is what we have been told in our school.
Anyone who is not permanent/CID holder is not going to be safe in the future, regardless of how long they have held the post for.
Each RPT contract is of one years duration and is open for renewal on a yearly basis therefor to let someone go is entirely possible if a person being moved by redeployment teaches their subjects, no labour laws are being broken as the contract is renewed annually.
A school near ours has 6-8 people (not sure of the final number) who are being redeployed. We have a few teachers considering retirement and 3 teachers who have been here 2/3 yrs on RPT contracts who may lose their jobs in the reshuffle even though their subjects are required next year (viable as linguist called it). Our principal is not happy about it but cant do anything either.

gaeilgebeo

linguist wrote: »

gaeilgebeo, to tell me I am wrong in seven words without explaining yourself isn't very impressive. It's actually pretty rude.

You appear to come from a VEC background. I and others have discussed the VEC situation at length and it is indeed the case that since you are employed by your scheme, it is considerably easier for an RPT teacher to lose their job there. I really don't fancy repeating everything I've said. Between myself, rainbowtrout and possibly others, it's been covered.

I, on the other hand, have a contractual relationship with my board of management. There are no grounds for my dismissal. The job I was engaged to do is still there and I am the incumbent. Certain posters would do well to remember that teachers (except in VECs) are employed by their board of management, not by the Dept of Education. Frankly gaeilgebeo, if you read the relevant legislation, you will see that workers with more than a year's service have the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act and they are basically entitled to their job if it is viable and their service is satisfactory. And my job with my employer is viable as will be the case for thousands of others.

I don't work in the public sector, but my understanding of the relevant leglislation (Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977–2007) is that your rights, wrt unfair dismissal, depend on whether you are on a permanent or temporary contract. The apropriate leglislation is correctly interpreted here.
The nub of this, as it applies to non-permanent staff is: "If an employee whose employment started after 14 July 2003 has been employed on 2 or more continuous fixed-term contracts, the total duration of those contracts may not exceed 4 years. "It is only after the four year period that the teacher has "the same protection from unfair dismissal as any permanent employee. "

To be clear, under the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977–2007 the School BOM must offer a teacher on a RPT position a CID, or let them go, after that four years. Even if the teacher in question is given a new temporary contract, in law they may as well have a CID. I suspect that is why some ASTI documentation makes explicit mention of teachers who are in their 4th year.

The ASTI site does not quote leglislation on the legal status of temporary staff. Instead, it quotes DES Circular 0034/2009. To my knowledge this does not have the force of law, as it is not enshrined in leglislation. I readily admit that I may be wrong in this, as my position is based on (first hand) knowledge of redundancy criteria in Industry, rather than in the public sector. However, the ASTI would need to document a much stronger legal position than they do in their web site.

Linguist, I was not being rude whatsoever. No need to be so defensive.
I assumed you would have read the above post and that you would have read the Croke Park Agreement in detail.
I think you are being really naiive to think that you are an exception to the redeployment scheme that is being implemented.
I think you have decided that your job is safe because you have grounds for unfair dismissal.
I do work in a VEC but have family memebers working in Secondary and Community schools.
They too are on RPT contracts and they too have been to meetings with the principal(s) regarding redeployment and how it could affect their jobs.
Speak to someone who is high up in the union, they will tell you the same.
Nowhere in the CPA does it say that it is VEC schools only who will be most likely to be affected by redeployment.
It will affect all schools.
It is part of the CPA therefore you won't have legal grounds of unfair dismissal.

The point you are missing is that you are not being "dismissed".
Your contract is not being renewed.
There is a difference.
When you are RPT, your contract is from September- September. That is it.
Even before the redeployment scheme was enforced, there were many RPT teachers who didn't have contracts renewed in schools for various reasons, that's the nature of the contract.
If a teacher comes in to a school on an RPT contract for a year and they are not performing to the principals satisfaction, they principal has every right not to renew that contract wether the job is there or not.
I have seen this happen. That is the nature of a yearly contract.
That is the legality of it. It doesn't matter what type of school you are in. A yearly contract is a yearly contract legally.

Hopefully redeployment will only affect a small number of RPT teachers. Not all RPT teachers will lose their jobs but they do need to be aware of the reality of the situation.

gaeilgebeo

linguist wrote: »

Well what nobody has mentioned yet and it's important in my view is precedent.

In the redeployment agreement for school closures, it was accepted that redeployment was not possible into RPT jobs, except where the incumbent was in their first year. Nothing in labour law has changed in the meantime. I would reiterate that the unions and indeed the school management bodies believe that to displace people with more than a year's service is likely to be illegal under legislation. If this comes to a case all of these issues will be on the table including, surely, the precedent set by the school closure arrangements.

Godge, reading back over your earlier contribution regarding the High Court ruling, it is perfectly reasonable except for the fact that it ignores the specific nature of a teacher's contract. I am employed by my BOM and merely paid out of State funds. Were there a permanent employee and me, and only work for one of us, then clearly I would have to go. But there is no such person on our staff. Therefore no permanent employee of my employer is prejudiced by my being there, hence my job is viable and it is not vacant. The question of who the employer is is clearly in the background of this debate, but the Department would be hard pressed to claim that they are. The Board of Management put the ad in the paper, they interviewed me, they employed me.

Seriously? Do you really believe that you are only paid by the state and are employed by the BOM?
You are an employee of the Dept. of education!

That arguement wouldn't be viable at all.

peanuthead

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

The point you are missing is that you are not being "dismissed".
Your contract is not being renewed.
There is a difference.
When you are RPT, your contract is from September- September. That is it.
Even before the redeployment scheme was enforced, there were many RPT teachers who didn't have contracts renewed in schools for various reasons, that's the nature of the contract.
If a teacher comes in to a school on an RPT contract for a year and they are not performing to the principals satisfaction, they principal has every right not to renew that contract wether the job is there or not.
I have seen this happen. That is the nature of a yearly contract.
That is the legality of it. It doesn't matter what type of school you are in. A yearly contract is a yearly contract legally.

Hopefully redeployment will only affect a small number of RPT teachers. Not all RPT teachers will lose their jobs but they do need to be aware of the reality of the situation.

I agree with what you are saying, but I think emotions are just very high at the moment and people are in denial because they are upset.

I'm on an RPT contract in a school I absolutely adore, and the thought of not being there next year is really upsetting me. I do understand that by the very nature of my contract that was always a possibility, but I think the underlined part of your post is the main concern.

The little input that we had as RPT teachers into whether or not we would be kept on has been taken away from us and now, no matter how fantastic or suitable we are for our positions they will go to someone else if needs be, not because they are better than us, just because they've been around longer.

Under normal circumstances I would be very confident that my RPT position would be renewed next year. I'm a hard worker, a dedicated teacher, I get on very well with students and staff alike, have no problems I can't sort out myself (yet, thankfully) and I put my heart and soul into all my lessons. I don't do it for praise or to be kept on, that's just who I am, but it annoys me to think that my contract wouldn't be renewed, not because I wasn't good enough, but just because someone else who has never met me or stepped foot in this school has an entitlement to what would have been (under different circumstances) my job.

I read that a shift to more merit-based system of promotion was in the pipeline - how does this decision fit into all of that?

gaeilgebeo

Peanuthead,
I completely sympathise with your situation. I have close family members/friends in exactly the same position.
I commend the fact that you are well informed of the nature of your contract and the situation with redeployment.
I was simply trying to explain that there is no case for "unfair dismissal" when it comes to an RPT contract being terminated. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in the clouds.
Hopefully it won't come to that and you'll be one of the lucky ones.

peanuthead

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

Peanuthead,
I completely sympathise with your situation. I have close family members/friends in exactly the same position.
I commend the fact that you are well informed of the nature of your contract and the situation with redeployment.
I was simply trying to explain that there is no case for "unfair dismissal" when it comes to an RPT contract being terminated. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in the clouds.
Hopefully it won't come to that and you'll be one of the lucky ones.

Yeah, hopefully so. But yes, this is true. As RPT contract holders, we have no tenure rights whatsoever and I suppose that this has never really been acknowledged by people until now because it has never really been an issue, posts were just renewed on a continual basis until CID was acheived.

A system like this could work well if it was implemented properly. I really think CIDs need to be earned based on merit, rather than "putting in the years" but I shudder to think about the impact this is going to have on good, innovative teachers who really deserve to hold their positions.

Having said that, the other side of the coin is that I'm sure a lot of these teachers who are being deployed would rather not be going either.

Its a rough situation for us all, and we need to be at least grateful that we are being kept in the loop a bit. I would be majorly annoyed if I only found out about this in August.

Godge

linguist wrote: »

Well what nobody has mentioned yet and it's important in my view is precedent.

In the redeployment agreement for school closures, it was accepted that redeployment was not possible into RPT jobs, except where the incumbent was in their first year. Nothing in labour law has changed in the meantime. I would reiterate that the unions and indeed the school management bodies believe that to displace people with more than a year's service is likely to be illegal under legislation. If this comes to a case all of these issues will be on the table including, surely, the precedent set by the school closure arrangements.

Godge, reading back over your earlier contribution regarding the High Court ruling, it is perfectly reasonable except for the fact that it ignores the specific nature of a teacher's contract. I am employed by my BOM and merely paid out of State funds. Were there a permanent employee and me, and only work for one of us, then clearly I would have to go. But there is no such person on our staff. Therefore no permanent employee of my employer is prejudiced by my being there, hence my job is viable and it is not vacant. The question of who the employer is is clearly in the background of this debate, but the Department would be hard pressed to claim that they are. The Board of Management put the ad in the paper, they interviewed me, they employed me.

The redeployment agreement for school closures was agreed before the current crisis and was under Towards 2016. That is an industrial relations agreement and not one based on labour law. So to say that nothing has changed in labour law since is fine except that the agreement was not based on labour law and what has changed is the nature of the crisis facing the country.

On your other point, the employer issue, the Department of Education is the employer for the Payment of Wages Act and the BOM is the employer for the Unfair Dismissals Act - both of those have been settled in law for some time. So it is not clear who is the employer. Aside from all that, the redeployment agreement is a collective agreement entered into by the Department, the teaching unions (subject to the TUI ballot) representing the individual teachers and the management bodies (can't remember their names, oh ACCS and IVEA) representing the individual boards of management so again it doesn't matter which of them is the employer. Your union(s) have entered a collective agreement with your employer(s) that gives the employer(s) the right to displace you by someone else.

If the worst happens, can you challenge the dismissal? I don't know, there is some possibility that you could, but in the current climate Rights Commissioners, the EAT and the Labour Court have been handing down some strange decisions that have favoured the interest of the State - as did the High Court in the case of the Garda (GPA) challenge to the pay cuts legislation - so I would not be taking a huge amount of comfort from your analysis.

Finally, as pointed out elsewhere, you are not being dismissed, your temporary contract is not being renewed, and there are significant differences in labour law between the two.

P.S. I do have a lot of sympathy for the plight of young teachers on part-time temporary contracts but I am only trying to draw attention to some dangers for them.

linguist

Ok, well firstly to clarify, I never said that only people in VECs would be affected or that they would primarily be affected. Read what I wrote. The point is that redeployment is and has long been an issue in VECs because their staff are appointed to the scheme and not the school. Totally different point. Indeed, as one of the documents I'm referencing here, from TUI, shows, the situation in the VECs is actually very stable this year.

Secondly, there has been some very useful information conveyed here, for which I'm grateful. However, I do have to insist that my view of things is anything but a personal flight of fancy and frankly I do not accept that I am either in denial or naive.

Take this interesting quote from the ACCS website:


"Vacancies should be declared for allocations of hours to teachers who are in their 1st year of a fixed term contract, and it is generally agreed that these hours are ‘redeployable’. Vacancies should also be declared for allocations of hours to teacher who are in their 2nd or 3rd successive year of a fixed-term contract. It is not as clear as to these persons legal entitlement to continuity, but it is certainly arguable. Unless and until this position is clarified the hours allocated to these teachers must be declared as a vacancy."

Secondly the TUI has issued this clarification of the position as it sees it on its website:

http://www.tui.ie/_fileupload/PSA%20Clarification%201.doc

Hope that displays, if it doesn't, follow the CPA links on their website.

The point is that unions and management bodies certainly don't agree that they have entered into an agreement sanctioning the wholesale displacement of RPTs.

Anyway, I really don't want to get into any conflict with anyone here. At the back of it all, I'm just an RPT teacher understandably concerned about their position and I am prepared to defend my job all the way if necessary. The state of the nation may be bad but nobody has the right to stop anyone seeking to vindicate their rights and no recession or crisis should prevent the law from being upheld. If we allow that, we may as well give up democracy and the rule of law altogether.

floating voter

I think it will depend on the wording of your contract and what exactly you are doing in the school.

Broadly there are two types of RPT contract. a) No limiting conditions. the hours are part of the schools regular hours as calculated by the pupil teacher ratio. and b) contracts with a limiting condition. (words such as you are not being offered a cid at this stage...., subject to funding, special purpose etc etc

any contract with a limiting condition (nearly all, since schools started to wise up to cid situation) is toast and subject to redeployment.

savina10

Would anyone like to hazard a guess about those on fixed PURPOSE contracts as opposed to fixed term contracts (appointed to a VEC scheme but not on CID's). Will they also be subject to the effects of redeployment?

gaeilgebeo

linguist wrote: »

Ok, well firstly to clarify, I never said that only people in VECs would be affected or that they would primarily be affected. Read what I wrote. The point is that redeployment is and has long been an issue in VECs because their staff are appointed to the scheme and not the school. Totally different point. Indeed, as one of the documents I'm referencing here, from TUI, shows, the situation in the VECs is actually very stable this year.

Secondly, there has been some very useful information conveyed here, for which I'm grateful. However, I do have to insist that my view of things is anything but a personal flight of fancy and frankly I do not accept that I am either in denial or naive.

Take this interesting quote from the ACCS website:


"Vacancies should be declared for allocations of hours to teachers who are in their 1st year of a fixed term contract, and it is generally agreed that these hours are ‘redeployable’. Vacancies should also be declared for allocations of hours to teacher who are in their 2nd or 3rd successive year of a fixed-term contract. It is not as clear as to these persons legal entitlement to continuity, but it is certainly arguable. Unless and until this position is clarified the hours allocated to these teachers must be declared as a vacancy."

Secondly the TUI has issued this clarification of the position as it sees it on its website:

http://www.tui.ie/_fileupload/PSA%20Clarification%201.doc

Hope that displays, if it doesn't, follow the CPA links on their website.

The point is that unions and management bodies certainly don't agree that they have entered into an agreement sanctioning the wholesale displacement of RPTs.

Anyway, I really don't want to get into any conflict with anyone here. At the back of it all, I'm just an RPT teacher understandably concerned about their position and I am prepared to defend my job all the way if necessary. The state of the nation may be bad but nobody has the right to stop anyone seeking to vindicate their rights and no recession or crisis should prevent the law from being upheld. If we allow that, we may as well give up democracy and the rule of law altogether.

I don't think anyone wants to get into a conflict.
The point I think you are missing is that as an RPT teacher, your contract goes from year to year and can be changed/terminated at the end of any year.
This is was the case before the redeployment scheme came into play.
You seem to believe that if it is terminated that you are being "unfairly dismissed".
This is not the case.

Lord TSC

In other news, the government today announced new plans to provide everyone between the ages of 21 - 25 a free airline ticket to wherever they want...one way, of course...

solerina

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

I don't think anyone wants to get into a conflict.
The point I think you are missing is that as an RPT teacher, your contract goes from year to year and can be changed/terminated at the end of any year.
This is was the case before the redeployment scheme came into play.
You seem to believe that if it is terminated that you are being "unfairly dismissed".
This is not the case.

This is exactly the case, you cant be unfairly dismissed as your contract reaches its natural conclusion at the end of August, so however unfair it appears its something which in many cases is very likely to happen and there is very little that can be done about it.

MathsManiac

Godge wrote: »

...
On your other point, the employer issue, the Department of Education is the employer for the Payment of Wages Act and the BOM is the employer for the Unfair Dismissals Act - both of those have been settled in law for some time. So it is not clear who is the employer.
...

It's also interesting to note that the Department argued successfully that it was NOT the employer of teachers in a case involving an abuse victim suing the state for compensation.

The court ruled, as I recall, that the victim ought to have sued the BOM/trustee of the school, and agreed that state had no vicarious liability as it was not the employer.

...Just found reference to the case here: http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1885&view=next