Are teachers on fixed term hours being given contracts and if not why not?

f3232

I am just wondering if teachers on fixed term contracts have actually seen their contracts?

Why are unions not insisting that all teachers on fixed term contracts actually see/sign their contracts.

It baffles me that schools and vecs are allowed to get away with this and the unions are not doing anything about it.

No, well after what TUI did over the HR agreement it actually does not baffle me. They really are spineless.

wolfyboy555

Didn't get my contract last year until April! No sign of it again this year either!

joebloggs32

I got a cid a few years ago despite never seeing or signing anything. I did get all my fixed term contracts before that and kept them. I asked the union rep at the time and he said I didnt need to get a contract stating I had a cid!

Rebelheart

I didn't get a written contract for my first five months in my existing school (I was on 22 hours per week). However, when we came back in September I did get one for the following year. I was informed by an employment law friend at the time that legally a written contract is not necessary because in a court it would be quite clear that an implied contract of employment existed (salary etc). As technically interesting as that is, I feel better with a written contract.

rainbowtrout

Rebelheart wrote: »

I didn't get a written contract for my first five months in my existing school (I was on 22 hours per week). However, when we came back in September I did get one for the following year. I was informed by an employment law friend at the time that legally a written contract is not necessary because in a court it would be quite clear that an implied contract of employment existed (salary etc). As technically interesting as that is, I feel better with a written contract.

That is true. A teacher I worked with a few years ago was in the school 6 years and no CID. Fought the case and won as she was always on her own hours in that time. A payslip and timetable was enough to show that the hours in the first two years where she wasn't given a formal written contract were enough to prove she had her own hours and paying her for those hours constituted a contract.

What I'd be most curious about in this situation is if a teacher didn't have a written contract in their fourth year (or third year now for TUI teachers). Many contracts have grounds for objective justification written into them so CIDs don't have to be provided for those hours or a portion of those hours. e.g. resource hours which may not be reasonably expected to exist in subsequent years, so a person might be teaching 17 hours : 11 hours regular and 6 hours resource, and an objective ground might be written into the contract for the resource hours so only the 11 become viable for CID purposes.

Anyway my question would be this: if Dept/ETB do not provide a written contract in third/fourth year (whichever is applicable) and said teacher applies for CID in subsequent year, and Dept/ETB try to get out of giving the CID entirely or only want to award one for a portion of the hours, is the teacher entitled to a CID for the full complement of hours they were on the previous year because the Dept/ETB didn't provide explicit objective justification by means of a written contract the previous year? My take on it would be that the teacher would be favoured as the onus would be on the employer to state those grounds in advance and they didn't.

rainbowtrout

f3232 wrote: »

I am just wondering if teachers on fixed term contracts have actually seen their contracts?

Why are unions not insisting that all teachers on fixed term contracts actually see/sign their contracts.

It baffles me that schools and vecs are allowed to get away with this and the unions are not doing anything about it.

No, well after what TUI did over the HR agreement it actually does not baffle me. They really are spineless.

Don't turn this into another TUI bashing thread. Surely if the unions are at fault for not pushing for all teachers to get written contracts, the fault lies with ASTI as much as TUI?

Also teachers should take some personal responsibility for their employment. It is not beyond a teacher to ring up and look for a copy of their contract. Obviously if they are getting nowhere then they can go the route of the union and I would imagine at that stage that a contract would be produced, but surely an adult in any workplace is capable of asking for a copy of their contract if one isn't forthcoming?

f3232

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Don't turn this into another TUI bashing thread. Surely if the unions are at fault for not pushing for all teachers to get written contracts, the fault lies with ASTI as much as TUI?

True they are both spineless to have allowed this to happen

Also teachers should take some personal responsibility for their employment. It is not beyond a teacher to ring up and look for a copy of their contract.

Im not sure any fixed term teacher want to go shouting off about contracts or even looking for them at all. Afraid of raising their heads above the parapet so to speak.

Obviously if they are getting nowhere then they can go the route of the union and I would imagine at that stage that a contract would be produced, but surely an adult in any workplace is capable of asking for a copy of their contract if one isn't forthcoming?

An adult who is in a very precarious employment situation. Its easy to site the letter of procedure without understanding the subtle dynamics at play and the subtle pressure on non permanent teachers to keep their heads down. This is where unions have a role, in advocating and bring to light such dynamics and in ensuring that all fixed term teachers are given contracts. But they are basically spineless cowards.

Rebelheart

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That is true. A teacher I worked with a few years ago was in the school 6 years and no CID. Fought the case and won as she was always on her own hours in that time. A payslip and timetable was enough to show that the hours in the first two years where she wasn't given a formal written contract were enough to prove she had her own hours and paying her for those hours constituted a contract.

Now that could be an important distinction. In my case, when I started teaching in January I was on somebody else's (somebody who retired) 22 hours. I did not receive a written contract, although it is incontrovertible that I was working those hours. When I came back in Sept my hours were halved, but they were mine and I received a written contract. The following year I had full hours on my own contract (thanks to retirements in my subject area). Now, with your distinction, I'm left wondering do those initial five months when I was working count, or not count, in terms of having a right to CID/permanency.

evolving_doors

Rebelheart wrote: »

Now that could be an important distinction. In my case, when I started teaching in January I was on somebody else's (somebody who retired) 22 hours. I did not receive a written contract, although it is incontrovertible that I was working those hours. When I came back in Sept my hours were halved, but they were mine and I received a written contract. The following year I had full hours on my own contract (thanks to retirements in my subject area). Now, with your distinction, I'm left wondering do those initial five months when I was working count, or not count, in terms of having a right to CID/permanency.

I'd imagine if the person had retired then you couldn't possibly be on ' their' hours...as they had retired...unless they were doing some leave of absence/sick leave/sabbatical thing (like micheal martin is doing at the moment).

Rebelheart

Armelodie wrote: »

I'd imagine if the person had retired then you couldn't possibly be on ' their' hours...as they had retired...unless they were doing some leave of absence/sick leave/sabbatical thing (like micheal martin is doing at the moment).

Interesting. But as the hours were secured for their post (I'm assuming for the academic year?) beginning the previous September and I merely replaced them in those 22 hours surely this is not the start of a new contract as no new hours were given to the school? They just retired, no leave of absence etc. Would the Dept usually issue a new contract mid-year to replace a retired staff member (after all they have to continue those classes no matter what)?

rainbowtrout

Rebelheart wrote: »

Now that could be an important distinction. In my case, when I started teaching in January I was on somebody else's (somebody who retired) 22 hours. I did not receive a written contract, although it is incontrovertible that I was working those hours. When I came back in Sept my hours were halved, but they were mine and I received a written contract. The following year I had full hours on my own contract (thanks to retirements in my subject area). Now, with your distinction, I'm left wondering do those initial five months when I was working count, or not count, in terms of having a right to CID/permanency.

But if they retired they weren't working in the school anymore so the hours couldn't belong to anyone else but you for those five months.

On the other side of that, while they were your hours in that sense, I'm going to guess that you were on a fixed term contract and didn't get paid for the summer so that might constitute a break in service.

But when I was googling CIDs the other night I came across this:


http://employmentrightsireland.com/tag/cid/

Continuous Employment

Continuous employment is defined in the First Schedule to the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, 2003 and the issue of whether employment has been continuous is not entirely straightforward.

The Rights Commissioner service and the Labour Court have held that breaks of up to 3 months were not sufficient to break an employee’s continuous service.
Therefore it is strongly recommended that if you are an employer or employee you should obtain legal advice from a solicitor who is experienced in employment law matters.

Now this appears to be from a solicitor's website rather than citizen's information etc, but I wonder would you be entitled to a CID given that the hours were essentially yours, you wouldn't have had more than a 3 month break and the person was retired. ....

rainbowtrout

Rebelheart wrote: »

Interesting. But as the hours were secured for their post (I'm assuming for the academic year?) beginning the previous September and I merely replaced them in those 22 hours surely this is not the start of a new contract as no new hours were given to the school? They just retired, no leave of absence etc. Would the Dept usually issue a new contract mid-year to replace a retired staff member (after all they have to continue those classes no matter what)?

Well that's where the fixed term vs. RPT contract comes into play. Even at that though you were teaching hours that no one else had a claim to. I would say it's more the break in service for the summer that's the stickler here.