Redundancy - Fixed Term Contract v Perm Employees

[gareth60]

Hi everyone,

 

My sister works in a small school with 7 teaching staff. 2 of the staff are on fixed term contracts with an end date of 31st August 2011. The Headteacher has recently written to all teaching staff informing them that if pupil numbers do not increase then 2 members of staff will be at risk of redundancy from 31st August 2011.

 

How can the permanent staff roles be at risk when the most obvious course of action would be to just not extend or renew the fixed term contracts? Does anyone know?

 

If a perm was made redundant then that post would need to be filled by either extending or making permanent one of the employees on fixed term.. Surely this means that the post was never redundant in the first place?

 

Thanks

Edited February 27, 2011 by gareth60

[Atlas01]

Educated guess (can't be bothered looking it up first) but i'm pretty sure most FT contracts of this type (your not employed from a-b to build a bridge and the bridge is now built but for work which may not have ceased or diminished) once they have passed 3 months mean the people in those posts must be considered with full time employees in a redundancy situation

 

we know when they end, when did they start?

 

It may even be written into the schools redundancy policy which you should be asking for,

[gareth60]

Good point Atlas. They are 2 year fixed term contracts ending on 31st August 2011. They have not been subject to any renewal as yet.

[Atlas01]

the only schools FTC's i know that tend not to be renewed/reviewed in conjunction with other staff is where the person is working with a statemented child and that child is moving school/no longer in need

 

The school appears to be saying there is(or will be) only work for 5 people after the re-structure not 7, if they all undertake the same or similar roles they must be considered together.

 

At least for the FT staff is it is them made redundancy they have 2 years in meaning they should be eligible for redundancy pay.

 

You should also check if the school is part of the LA's umbrella where they will seek to redeploy redundant staff through other schools or if they are a classed as separate and therefore only bound to look for other jobs in that school.

[postggj]

the point of contactiing all staff is normal

 

rather than getting rid of a fixed term contract member, a full time staff member might like to accept redundency and save the previous persons job who wants to continue

 

its called

 

CONSULTATION PERIOD

 

BEFORE AND IF HARD DECISIONS NEED TO BE MADE BY MANAGEMENT

[gareth60]

Thanks Atlas 01. I can see why the school has decided to include all 7 staff in the pool. They wouldn't want to leave themselves open to a claim of discrimination by the FT employees who need to be also treated fairly. The most likely outcome of the consultancy, however, is that 2 perms will be made redundant. The 2 FTs are younger, cheaper and perhaps more aligned to the thinking of a relatively new Head. The 5 perms are older more expensive and perhaps a bit "set in their ways".

 

The point I was really exploring is the apparent anomaly this could create. i.e A perm role is made redundant but then filled again by an extended fixed term or a fixed term to perm appointment.

 

Do you think this would give grounds for a claim for unfair dismissal?

[gareth60]

Thanks for the shout pggj - very helpful........I think.......

[SarEl]

A fixed term contract of two years or more entitles the employee to be considered redundant (in law - i.e. they are entitled to be treated the same way as any other potentially redundant person) if the contract is not renewed. It is unlawful to make someone redundant purely on the grounds that they have a fixed term contract. So if it known that the school cannot continue to employ everyone and a redundancy situation occurs, the school cannot choose to terminate only the fixed term contracts. I am at a loss as to why so many employers even bother with them any more. They are largely an anachronism from the old days when fixed term employees had few employment rights, and cause employers more headaches than they are worth.

[gareth60]

Thank You SarEI

 

In this case the "objective reason" given at the start of the 2 year period for fixed term rather than perm contracts was the uncertainty over pupil numbers. This is now also the business reason given for the potential redundancies. I think that the school could make a case for terminating the fixed term contracts on this basis?

[SarEl]

No, I think not. A reduction in business is always on the cards, as is an increase. It doesn't matter what your busness is. The employees have over 52 weeks service, so can claim unfair dismissal. The only reason why there would be a cause to dismiss the fixed term contract staff would be because they have fixed term contracts - and that would be because they have fixed term contracts and others don't. That would make the reason for dismssal their fixed term contracts - which is unlawful.

[gareth60]

Thank you SarEI

 

That is very helpful and makes things a lot clearer. I can see what you mean now by your earlier post on the value of fixed term contracts!

[gareth60]

It seems the FTC employees in question only have 6 months continual employment at the school. Does this make any difference to the case. I understand you need 1 year continual service to make an unfair dismissal claim?

[SarEl]

That is true - but it does not mean that the employer should be unfair in their decisions. Only that they cannot be challenged as unfair dismissals (unless for sex, race other factors).