Yes, in order to qualify for the redundancy money, you actually have to be unemployed for a short period.  When you think of it, it is quite fair.  You are given money - which can be quite a large amount - in order to make up for being without a job.  But if you get another job straight away, then clearly . . .

Alternatively, you can get a job from 1st September and then give up the money - just as if you had not been redundant, but decided to move to another school.  What teachers normally do.

Some schools, if they are very keen to have you, will agree to get a Supply teacher in for the first 4 or 5 weeks of term, and let you start on Monday 8th October. But they will not be very keen.

An alternative solution which would have the same impact on you (losing salary and continuity of employment for a month plus one day) is to negotiate with your employer to leave on July 30 instead of August 31.  They may or may not be agreeable to that, but it would certainly be better for getting a September job..

christopherhacking

Can the severance period be enforced in this circumstance? As its potentially preventing me from applying for further employment.

No, it's not preventing you from applying for employment - it's preventing you from getting employment on 1st September, AND having money given to you as compensation for being unemployed.

It's preventing you from:

If you come to the JobSeekers Forum and open the Welcome thread, you'll see some clickables with FAQs and tips on How to Get Shortlisted.  Might be just what you want!

Best wishes

_______________________________________

TheoGriff. Member of the TES Careers Advice Service.

For the full TES Weekend Workshop programme please visit www.tes.co.uk/careerseminars or contact advice@tes.co.uk for one-to-one sessions.

I shall be contributing to the Moving into SLT seminar on 5th May.

 Theogriff is correct.

If you apply for another post for September and are successful, your only alternatives are as he says, but just to reiterate:

1)  Take the job and give up the severance moey

or

2)  Take the job and ask your current head to terminate your employment at the end of July (but you'd  lose a month's pay)

or

3)  Take the job and ask the new employer if you can start in October (you'd lose a month's pay here, too.  I'd have to say that if I were the new employer, I'd say 'No')

A reminder that options 2 and 3 also entail the loss of a month's pension payments.

 Could the OP take the new job, starting on September 1st and agree 2 things with his new employer:

1) that he works unpaid for the first month

2) that his annual salary is then split & paid over 11 months. On paper, it may appear as if he had had a pay rise (monthly pay increase despite no net annual increase). Next year it may appear that he gets a pay cut as his salary was redistributed over 12 months. (monthly decrease)

???

hadron

 Could the OP take the new job, starting on September 1st and agree 2 things with his new employer:

1) that he works unpaid for the first month

2) that his annual salary is then split & paid over 11 months. On paper, it may appear as if he had had a pay rise (monthly pay increase despite no net annual increase). Next year it may appear that he gets a pay cut as his salary was redistributed over 12 months. (monthly decrease)

???

No, because that would be deception and the OP and his new head both risk prosecution for a criminal offence.

I don't think it would be deception since there would have to be a contract, signed by both parties, inspectable by anyone. Who is being deceived? 

Nothing would be hidden and the T&C of the previous contract would be respected.

I don't think there is any 'criminal activity' involved here either. The police would certainly not be interested in this situation. 

I can see that one or either of the parties may feel uncomfortable with this arrangement and that it may not respect the spirit of the previous contract but I would hazard a guess that this arrangement could be legally acceptable.

hadron

I don't think it would be deception since there would have to be a contract, signed by both parties, inspectable by anyone. Who is being deceived? 

Yes, there is.

But if you want to encourage someone to commit a criminal offence...'hazard all the guesses' you like.

 I seem to have touched a nerve somehow, not something I meant to do, particularly with Midllemarch who's advice and comments are always so measured and professional - apologies if this is the case.

Just a few words though on the subject of 'criminal offence'. A criminal offence relates to a crime against the public or the state whereas a civil offence, which is what this could be, is one against a private party. 

In this latter case, the case would be pursued by the 'wronged' party. In this instance, the employer who had agreed that the employee should not be in paid employment for a month. The employee could be sued for breach of contract but in no way is this a criminal offence & the employee would not have a criminal record. 

I have negotiated a few contracts in my time. Often a situation arises that was not forseen when a contract was being drawn up &, by reading the contract carefully, it becomes apparent how the situation can or should be resolved while still respecting its terms.

So it is clear, far from encouraging anyone to commit a criminal offence, I am actually encouraging them to re-read their old contract, negotiate a new contract and ensure that they can meet the terms of both to suit the situation they find themselves in.

Dunno if I have the wording right and that is an actual criminal offence, but it seems pretty likely.

A nd so it should be, in my view!

W hy should someone receive, tax free, a sum likely to be about 3 months' salary or so, from the public purse, for being unemployed and without income, when in fact this is not true?

Only seems true because he and the Head are in cahoots to fiddle the books.

I'll say quickly that the OP has NOT done this, and add equally quickly that I realise that you were trying to be supportive to him, when you suggested this.

But I hope that on reflection you can see that this suggestion is, almost certainly, a criminal offence and most assuredly morally reprehensible, akin to making a false claim in order to claim welfare benefits to which you are not entitled, which, incidentally is indeed a criminal offence. Speaking as someone who contributes to the public purse . . .

I am in support of MM's view that this IS a criminal offence and that the Police WOULD be involved, and have in fact just remembered the wording.

This is Gaining a Pecunary Advantage Through Deception. People get charged with this if, for example, they include information that isn't true on a CV, and are hired on the basis of a qualification that they don't actually have, or experience that didn't take place. Even if it's not money from the public purse but from a private employer (the pecuniary advantage referred to is their salary), this is still a criminal offence. By fiddling the books to pretend to be unemployed when really you are employed with deferred salary, in order therefore to collect a hefty tax-free handout paid from MY taxes, a handout paid to you as compensation for, allegedly, being unemployed, you are cheating your past employer, you are stealing from the taxpayer, you are laughing at all those teachers who are genuinely unemployed, and you are running the risk of a prison sentence.

Think it couldn't happen? Think I am being an old fussy and scaremongering?

Actually in 2010, I believe it was, someone who claimed in a job application a qualification they didn't have was charged with obtaining a pecuniary advantage through deception and sentenced to 18 months in prison.

And actually it was a teacher.

Posted from my Galaxy Tab.

Redundancy payments in the private sector tend to be given whether or not you move straight to a new job - after all, they've often no real way of knowing. So I can understand why some people might see it as unfair that there is this rule about staying unemployed, if they've seen friends getting a pay-off whilst moving straight to another job.

But I think the public sector rule is fair enough - the redundancy payment is there to (partly) offset the lack of income while you look for a new job, and if there isn't a gap, you don't need it. A little money saved here might protect someone's hours next year.

Many thanks to all that responded to my query, I now am clear on what my options are and was interested by the topics raised by my colleagues.

The severance value is not an insignificant amount, so I will be collecting the payment and looking for a job to start after October 8th for those who have been following this thread.

 With thanks

CWH

 I've just caught up with this thread, and - whilst I'm sure all he advice is correct - I do know that sometimes schools/teachers agree to an earlier release date (here, say the end of the Summer term), with the pay for the rest of July & August given as 'in lieu of notice'. This has two obvious attractions - the pay thus given is tax free and you can start a new job in September. You might want to run this past your Union before agreeing anything else...

In any case - good luck!

TheoGriff

Yes, in order to qualify for the redundancy money, you actually have to be unemployed for a short period. 

I am not sure that this is a legal requirement. When I was made redundant from a city job, with quite a long period of notice, I found another job to start immediately afterewards. My redundancy notice did not have such a condition, and I got the money.

TheoGriff

And very tasty it was too!

Piranha

I am not sure that this is a legal requirement. When I was made redundant from a city job, with quite a long period of notice, I found another job to start immediately afterewards. My redundancy notice did not have such a condition, and I got the money.

But this is a teaching job and it is a legal requirement written into the redundancy agreement.

 Point taken, Middlemarch. I was wondering is there could be a compromise in such situations where (perhaps) the payout is slightly reduced to allow the teacher to start work immediately (which would not be possible if it were a legal requirement). The teacher gains and so does the school they are leaving. It is the sort of thing that can happen in the private sector, but I appreciate that things are more rigid in the public sector. Is this rule standard across all schools, or does it depend on the school/LEA?