Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Original poster

Not returning to job after mat leave - is there any way I can avoid paying back mat pay?

45 replies

spottydottystripes · 13/12/2013 23:04

NC'd for this as details make me quite identifiable.

I'm a teacher. 18 months ago my school's staffing system was restructured. I was a middle manager on a responsibility allowance. My job title was changed (effectively to a demotion) and my salary reduced, with three year's protected pay given. I went on mat leave in May. Whilst on leave, I saw a job advertised at my previous level of responsibility, with my previous salary. I applied for it and got it, and start in February. I won't therefore be returning to my previous school following my mat leave. My mat leave contract says that if I don't return for 13 weeks, the local authority is entitled to reclaim my 12 weeks of 50% pay. However, I wonder if I have a possible argument that I was on protected pay for a finite length of time - clearly, the reason protected pay exists is to give you time to find a new job on the same salary as you had before, or to make adjustments to your circumstances so that you can afford to live on the reduced new salary. Could I argue that given that I had protected pay for three years, it would have been foolish to pass up on this opportunity just because I was on mat leave? If I hadn't applied and had returned to my old job, there are no guarantees another would have come up on a similar salary. I should perhaps add that if it weren't for the reduced salary I wouldn't have been looking for a new job - I was very happy in my previous one.

Any thoughts from anyone would be much appreciated.

OP posts:
Original poster
spottydottystripes · 14/12/2013 15:55

Talkinpeace they're both academies, but on my payslip from my old school the LA was always named as my employer and it was the LA who dealt with my mat pay etc.

OP posts:
Original poster
spottydottystripes · 14/12/2013 15:56

BobPat it's not the school who gets the money, it's the council.

OP posts:
BobPatSamandIgglePiggle · 14/12/2013 15:59

Same principle then - the council / LEA / whoever may reconsider their generous packages if people try to play the system.

Original poster
spottydottystripes · 14/12/2013 16:00

I don't think they can - teachers' pay and conditions are set centrally.

OP posts:
BobPatSamandIgglePiggle · 14/12/2013 16:06

Ok - then the central government may reconsider.... You've already had your job changed. Organisations make changes to save money.

If someone works in Clarks selling shoes, assistant manager etc is demoted, goes on mat leave then finds a job for barratts (still selling shoes, assistant manager...) should she get away with paying it back?

We are lucky in this country to have maternity packages. I'd hate to see companies reconsidering because people try to play it.

Both sides need to stick to policy. Imagine the outcry if your LEA tried to make you come back early etc. It's a 2 way thing. Sorry

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 14/12/2013 16:08

If school is an academy, how are you still employed by the LA? I thought the whole point of academies was that they were outwith the control of the LA?

BackforGood · 14/12/2013 16:18

Panda - if your teaching is in a different authority Panda then it's not continuous service. We had all this when there were possible redundancies a little while back. Different authority is a different employer I'm afraid.

Original poster
spottydottystripes · 14/12/2013 16:21

ItsAll, I don't know. But it's definitely the LA dealing with this.

BobPat, but Clarks and Barratts are two entirely separate companies. I'm a teacher moving from one state school to another. Ultimately the govt pays me, and the govt are still getting my services. So it's a different set of circumstances, surely?

OP posts:
BobPatSamandIgglePiggle · 14/12/2013 16:25

No - the public buy things in shops. Their profit comes from the public.

JustCallMeBaldrick · 14/12/2013 16:27

I didn't go back to teaching after my maternity leave, but I never got asked for my maternity pay back! I think they forgot about me... Smile

Original poster
spottydottystripes · 14/12/2013 16:29

But my point is, if you leave Clarks, they're no longer getting anything from you. I'm leaving a school but not leaving teaching. Therefore the govt - who ultimately pay me - are still getting my services.

OP posts:
BobPatSamandIgglePiggle · 14/12/2013 16:34

Yes but the public can still buy shoes from you...

You can't play the system. We all know the deal before we take the money. If you're allowed to alter the deal then everyone should.

MrsChristmasBungle · 14/12/2013 16:40

If a new la is going to be your employer you will have continuous service as per the modification order.

If I were you I would call up your la hr and ask them about it, I'm sure they'll let you pay it back at a rate you can afford.

PandaNot · 14/12/2013 17:00

Different authorities is continuous service. I've moved authorities twice now because I live in between two. I've had 17 years continuous service and found out it applies to maternity leave and redundancy - if you are made redundant in one authority, you have to leave 30 days before you can commence with another or you're not classed as being made redundant. Same thing applies to maternity leave Same rule applied to my colleague recently too.

TalkinPeace · 14/12/2013 17:04

But Academies are NOT the local authority
look at your payslip : who does it say is your employer?

the fact that the Academy school has subcontracted the payroll function back to the LA does not make them your employer.

The whole point of academies is that they are independent of the LA and can set their own pay and conditions

Stevie77 · 14/12/2013 18:32

Sorry Spotty, but the gov is not your employer the LA is. Doesn't matter who "ultimately" is your employer because following that argument "ultimately" I'm your employer!

By all means, give it a go and see if they'll let you keep it but otherwise, you'll have to suck it up!

Original poster
spottydottystripes · 14/12/2013 22:38

Talkinpeace it has the name of my LA as my employer and I've been told it's the LA dealing with maternity. Sorry, I know what you're saying but I can only say what it says!

OP posts:
FloweryTaleofNewYork · 14/12/2013 23:22

What does the contract for your new job say about who your new employer will be?

MrsChristmasBungle · 15/12/2013 14:53

Spotty - you really are best to call hr. I would guess that you were originally employed by the la, then the school turned academy so you would have tupe'd to the academy. Most likely the new academy buy back support for hr and payroll functions from the la - all very standard.

They are highly likely to ask you to pay back the mat pay in this circumstance.

If you go straight from your old school to your new school you should keep continuous service even if they are both academies as academies are on the modification order as they're public ally funded.

Redcliff · 16/12/2013 12:45

Hi
Not sure if this counts but we had someone join a local government department from a school and he had continues service under the Modification order.

Just found this on the Local Government Association website...

Who is responsible for paying occupational maternity pay and SMP if a teacher changes jobs at the end of her maternity leave and returns to a different authority?

If the teacher does not return to her original job then the previous employer is not responsible for continuing to pay her SMP from the date she starts carrying out work for her new employer. She will no longer be entitled to the 12 weeks half occupational maternity pay as she is not returning to her original post as specified in the Burgundy Book. The original authority may at their discretion ask for occupational payments made to be returned.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page