Maternity - Might be complicated

gettingtheresometime

dadtobe wrote: »

That's right supply, back to the same class, same pay grade from when she left everything was the same.

I don't think that matters one iota.

She had a position and then left it.

The fact that she returned to the same position was purely coincidence.

There was no continuance of service (unless you've left out a material fact)

dadtobe

marliepanda wrote: »

They are not actively recruiting for her job. They are recruiting for a senior permanent position. That's not her job.

It's also not her old job. She's been employed by someone else for two years .

It's a new job.

They're interviewing at other grades too.

If she has no contract she would look at Burgundy book and anything implied.

dadtobe

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

I don't think that matters one iota.

She had a position and then left it.

The fact that she returned to the same position was purely coincidence.

There was no continuance of service (unless you've left out a material fact)

Why don't you think there would be an implied contract? Again union official advised otherwise without a WSOP or COE. See again I've been told differently this time from an Employment Solicitor (thats the route all my uni friends went down)

She has continuous service for her maternity leave build up with an LEA.

Edit: it wasn't a coincidence they asked HER back not anyone else. To go back to her old class/year group.

marliepanda

She can't possibly have gone back to her old class/year group. Her old class would be two year groups above...

You can't just decide that something is something.

It's also very unusual for a LEA to allow continuous service for maternity through supply...

However, as you've had so much advice from unions and employment solicitors that contradict what is being said here, it begs the question, why are you bothered what we think. Take your solicitor statement and your union rep and off you go sort it out...

dadtobe

marliepanda wrote: »

She can't possibly have gone back to her old class/year group. Her old class would be two year groups above...

You can't just decide that something is something.

It's also very unusual for a LEA to allow continuous service for maternity through supply...

However, as you've had so much advice from unions and employment solicitors that contradict what is being said here, it begs the question, why are you bothered what we think. Take your solicitor statement and your union rep and off you go sort it out...

Not unusual if she had ONLY done supply then it would fall into cat 3. But the following applies Teachers with less than 26 weeks’ continuous employment with their current employer but at least 1 year’s continuous employment with one or more local authorities

Not the same class but the same key stage group.

I really want a rounded approach before it goes down that route, and the advice you have given about mat leave has been WRONG. And I still want to find out about if she is eligible for redeployment or another suitable post.

marliepanda

Are you saying she can use continuous employment from 2 years ago to qualify for maternity leave? Seems highly unlikely you can leave a job for two years then use that to qualify for maternity.

Usually that refers to people changing schools but still being employed by the same LEA, not those who cease working for them. If she left employment and started working for supply agencies that's not continuous


If she does qualify, then that's news to me.

why are you talking about redeployment? First you need to establish whether she has a permanent contract and you haven't at all. She can't be redeployed when she hasn't even been 'deployed' in the first place!

dadtobe

marliepanda wrote: »

Are you saying she can use continuous employment from 2 years ago to qualify for maternity leave? Seems highly unlikely you can leave a job for two years then use that to qualify for maternity.

Usually that refers to people changing schools but still being employed by the same LEA, not those who cease working for them. If she left employment and started working for supply agencies that's not continuous


If she does qualify, then that's news to me.

why are you talking about redeployment? First you need to establish whether she has a permanent contract and you haven't at all. She can't be redeployed when she hasn't even been 'deployed' in the first place!

You learn something everyday! Shes built up the cont service over those years it doesn't go away.

I'm talking about redeployment because she will be being dismissed at the end of the FTC while she is on mat leave.

They must follow a process to find her a suitable alternative role before dismissing that is why I came here in the first place.

marliepanda

If she's on a fixed term contract she has no right to redeployment.

Her being pregnant does not give her extra rights over other people. She cannot be discriminated against for being pregnant. Not extending or giving her a new contract isn't discriminatory.

They absolutely can dismiss her after her contract ends.

dadtobe

marliepanda wrote: »

If she's on a fixed term contract she has no right to redeployment.

Her being pregnant does not give her extra rights over other people. She cannot be discriminated against for being pregnant. Not extending or giving her a new contract isn't discriminatory.

They absolutely can dismiss her after her contract ends.

On the 23rd of August you said:

" I have no knowledge of employment law" Anyone else or shall I go with what the Union advise?

marliepanda

I don't need to know the law to know that you can't grant yourself an automatic extension to a contract by becoming pregnant... it's called common sense.