Posts query

ethical

At the beginning of this school year staff were told that there would be 2 Assistant Principal posts available and that one would be filled by using the seniority criteria and the other by the new system.Not another word was mentioned until this week when staff were told that the 2 posts will now be filled in September of the coming year! As the new rules will be in operation then for all posts does this mean that the 1 supposed to be filled under the 'old' system will no longer and can no longer be filled using a system that will no longer exist? And if so does this not leave the school open to a legal challenge from the person(s) that have lost out or may have lost out.

man_no_plan

ethical wrote: »

At the beginning of this school year staff were told that there would be 2 Assistant Principal posts available and that one would be filled by using the seniority criteria and the other by the new system.Not another word was mentioned until this week when staff were told that the 2 posts will now be filled in September of the coming year! As the new rules will be in operation then for all posts does this mean that the 1 supposed to be filled under the 'old' system will no longer and can no longer be filled using a system that will no longer exist? And if so does this not leave the school open to a legal challenge from the person(s) that have lost out or may have lost out.

They have no way of knowing that they would have lost out for starters. Although they may feel that there would have been an advantage to having service weighted more heavily.

I don't know about a legal challenge. You'd need the full facts which you haven't given and even then its very hard to imagine how a challenge would succeed.

Why were the posts not offered this year? That's the first question if there's a good reason then there can be no case to answer.

Secondly there is still an advantage to having more service, just slightly less so. I thinking that to prove that you were disadvantaged would be a hard sell to be honest.

katydid

ethical wrote: »

At the beginning of this school year staff were told that there would be 2 Assistant Principal posts available and that one would be filled by using the seniority criteria and the other by the new system.Not another word was mentioned until this week when staff were told that the 2 posts will now be filled in September of the coming year! As the new rules will be in operation then for all posts does this mean that the 1 supposed to be filled under the 'old' system will no longer and can no longer be filled using a system that will no longer exist? And if so does this not leave the school open to a legal challenge from the person(s) that have lost out or may have lost out.

I though there was an embargo on posts?

TheDriver

You are allowed have a minimum number of A posts based on school size

katydid

TheDriver wrote: »

You are allowed have a minimum number of A posts based on school size

Ah ok. I was under the impression that if you lost an A post due to retirement or something, you couldn't fill it. That's not too bad.

man_no_plan

katydid wrote: »

Ah ok. I was under the impression that if you lost an A post due to retirement or something, you couldn't fill it. That's not too bad.

Basically its one A post per 100 students up to a 500, it gets worse after that. Then its one per 200. If you have less than 100 you get none

If you were over the quota a retired post holder wont be replace, if you fall bell the quota a new post holder can be appointed.

There is no provision to appoint new B Posts in any circumstances.

The op seems to enjoy throwing out red herrings and disappearing.

ethical

Having researched the 'posts' thing!,there does not seem to be a problem filling posts where the need arises in voluntary secondary schools but the case is different in ETBs,the later seem to save money by flagging posts and then not appointing for an eternity!

man_no_plan

Our etb has appointed several assistant principals over the past few years once they were sanctioned.

That has to be a huge generalisation ethical and you still haven't addressed your initial allegations.

mirrorwall14

Our ETB lost us a post this year that had been sanctioned by the department because they never advertised it. Now dept is saying F off, you obviously don't need it or something similar. Anyways the post is now gone apparently however it happened