Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

How do you treat earnings of supply teachers? HB reg 29(3) mentions average weekly earnings, but earnings vary and there is no recognisable pattern or cycle. I have managed to find a Commisioner’s decision CIS/242/1989 where the Commissioner decided the supply teacher was employed on a daily basis, and the period over which monies were earned was a month.

For example, a supply teacher provides his monthly payslip dated 31/10/06. This is for work done in September. He/she worked on 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th, 26th, 27th September.

What about one of these options:

a) input earnings from 18/09/06 (Monday after 1st day of work) and remove earnings from 02/10/06 (Monday after last day worked)

b) since earnings are for month of September, input from Monday 02/09/06 – Commissioner’s decision – period is a month (it seems wrong to input earnings from 02/09/06 when didn’t work until 11/09/06)

c) as employed on a daily basis, has 5 days earnings in one benefit week, 2 days earnings in the next week, and 2 days in the final week. Input week 1 earnings from 18/09/06, week 2 from 25/09/06, and week 3 from 02/10/06. But am I then ignoring Commissioner’s decision – period is a month?

[markp]

It seems a bit harsh to treat a supply teacher as having amonthly income when they are paid daily. Whilst they may be paid by an education authority it certainly isn’t on the same basis as a full – time employee (my wife used to do supply teaching so I know!).

I would apportion income for the period it is attributable to ie. 11- 15.9.06,
18-19.9.06 & 26-27.9.06 (assuming that you have the daily rate to hand). After all, it is dependant on the return of timesheets, whether by the individual or the school.

That’s my take on this.

Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

[Kevin D]

Martin,

What are the formal terms & conditions for the teacher with regard to being employed?

On the face of it, I’d tend to go with the usual “income is attributable to the period it is in respect of, irrespective of when it is actually paid”. But, the contract may offer a means of nailing it.

Regards

[markp]

Generally the contract is

(1) with an education authority which is not a lot more than “we will keep your details and get you work as and when we can” or

(2) More common these days, with an employment agency. I suspect that the contract terms are similar to the those used by the LEA. Again no guarantee of work.

Could one not apply the principle of Singer (1973) and therefore the income is attributable to the period of work? Am I wrong in this viewpoint?

Many years ago I had almost daily arguments with Oxford ‘A’ UBO re Supply teachers signing on in Summer. Oxford ‘B’ seemed to understand that they weren’t teachers on a customary holiday but Oxford ‘A’ seemed to want to treat them as such. Therefore the same principle applies to the wages paid, in my view, in that they can only be deemed to cover the actual dates the payment relates to as they were genuinely unemployed when not actually teaching.

Any other takes on this?

Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

[Author]

Posts