Can companies only offer full time roles?

[Oxfordblue]

My friend works part-time at a school & the management have decided the want all staff to bring employed on a full-time basis.
So all staff now have to re-apply for the full-time positions if they wish to remain working at the school.

My friend is upset because she doesn't (can't) work full time & feels they are discriminating against women, because most of the part-time staff are women.

She has written to the headmaster who called her in for a meeting. He was quite stern with her & assured her they've consulted lawyers. She will be offered redundancy.

She feels they have basically forced her (& others) out of their jobs.

How many employees are being affected by this?

Seems odd that the school need more hours out of control amount of staff.

Maybe they're hoping for natural wastage of sorts? Hoping enough people will resign/leave?

Only females are part time so only they are affected.

Seems odd that the school need more hours out of control amount of staff.

Tell them you will take legal advice. Go to Acas and show them the documentation.

What @00100001 means is unless there has been a sudden increase in pupil numbers it's odd that the school would want all part timers to suddenly be full time. Looks like a deliberate move to make some of the part timers quit.

Could she suggest 2 part timers jobshare one of the full time posts?

This is one of the scenarios they’re probably looking to avoid.

If she's in a union she should contact them. Many independent school teachers are on unions. There will a national or regional number she can claim.

Yep clare

That’s exactly the point though. For some reason they don’t want part timers. Maybe job shares are too expensive or they need continuity across the week. Converting multiple part time positions into full time ones will mean fewer staff. Hence them needing to apply. If there were the same number of jobs that had just gone from part time to full time they could just be slotted into them.

A grievance arguing that the management have been unfair on part timers / indirectly discriminatory doesn’t cost anything to put in. Initial legal advice and a letter isn’t too costly, or could even be free if she’s a union member or has legal services as part of home insurance.

If she complies / leaves for a new job, she is taking all the economic costs/risks arising from her employer’s unfair actions.

It's very odd.

Part timers are more expensive than full timers. Eggs it's more expensive to employ 4 people for 10 hrs than 1 person for 40.

But OP is indicating that all PT jobs are being converted to full time positions?

OP if there are (say) 10 PT 0.5 roles, are these being converted to 10 FT roles, or 5 FT roles?

From ACAS:

Part-time workers have the right to be treated no less favourably than comparable full-timers. This means they should:

receive the same rates of Pay
not be excluded from training simply because they work part-time
receive Holidays (Holidays) pro rata to comparable full-timers
have any career break schemes, contractual and parental leave made available to them in the same way as for full-time workers
not be treated less favourably when workers are selected for Redundancy.
An employer will need to objectively justify the reason why they treat part-time staff differently, and show the reason can meet a genuine business need. An example of objective justification would include a part-time worker who is denied health insurance, even though a comparable full-time worker has one, because of the disproportionate cost to the organisation of providing the benefit.

I’d see a lawyer.

Part time staff are frequently cheaper for schools and certainly allow for greater flexibility. Often they are women and they have families. They are rarely expensive male teachers.

I too have a sneaking suspicion that they are cutting teachers in the school and are targeting part time staff. It’s senseless though. Why would you target the hours staff work, rather than actual jobs that are no longer needed? So, if you had 4 full time drama teachers, but 8 part time maths teachers and the school decided they didn’t need the 4 full time drama teachers because they were reducing the hours for this subject, it should be these jobs that are looked at for redundancy. In a school, you always look at what needs to be taught, not the type of contract used to teach it. If you cannot recruit 4 full time maths teachers, but can recruit 8 part time, most schools would do this to deliver the curriculum! It’s vital!! Nearly all schools have a mix of full time and part time posts.

Therefore this scenario is totally bizarre. It makes no sense. What if the part time teachers are the bulk of the science dept? Or are sports teachers? It’s uttetly stupid. Makes me wonder if more is going on then the op knows about. It sounds a poorly run school to me.

I've asked my friend for more information. Basically she is a language teacher (French & German) + support - part-time.

The school have decided they want full time teachers of German with French & Spanish with French. So I think they are covering their bases & maybe don't want women!

I suspect you're right & something else is going on