Case Study: ‘Not paid for an interview day’

Case studies from subscribers

We support school staff in England and Wales with a wide range of employment-related issues in schools.These range from clarification with employment contracts, PPA time, job references to allegations from pupils, dismissal from role to employment tribunals and Teaching and Regulation Agency hearings. This case study looks at a subscriber being not paid for an interview day.

Below, we highlight the types of questions and situations teachers contact us about. We have removed specific details about the cases and the actual names of subscribers for confidentiality reasons. You can also read our latest reviews from our subscribers on TrustPilot.

Case Study: ‘Not paid for an interview day’

Case Headlines

Daisy was excited to be promoted to an Assistant Head role in a new school. She had had a very successful time at her school and felt ready for the new challenge in a different Trust.

She enjoyed the interview day and gladly accepted the post when it was offered.

Daisy applied for the day using the school’s process and didn’t hear anything back. This wasn’t unusual and, as had happened on previous occasions, assumed this meant it had been put in the cover system.

She attended the day and subsequently discovered it was being treated as an unpaid day.

Subscriber View

Daisy was really frustrated about this as the pay was a financial hit she couldn’t necessarily afford. She believed she had followed the process and wasn’t told she couldn’t go or that it would be unpaid.

On reading, the decision did seem to fit with the school’s policy on discretionary leave; however, it was that she wasn’t told that frustrated her. 

How did Edapt support?

Edapt subscribers bring a huge range of cases to be looked at. Many are disciplinary or other formal process issues that require a lengthy period of support in and out of meetings with comprehensive planning alongside the subscriber.

This case, not paid for an interview day, is an example of Edapt intervention to highlight employer mis-steps to secure the best possible outcome. Whilst it is very specific and on one level straight forward, getting an employer to recognise the issue without support can sometimes be hard.

Daisy and her assigned Caseworker formed a strategy to communicate the frustration and failings of the system. Daisy’s caseworker pointed out she had been put in a worse position because of the actions of the employer and this could be legitimately tackled. It was possible that she could have decided not to go had she known, for example.

The communication constructed pointed out that no decision had ever been communicated even though the paperwork had been completed well in advance of the day.  As a result she wasn’t given all the information to allow her to make a different decision to attend to the one she made, had they replied as ‘unpaid’. The system had failed to her detriment.

Daisy was leaving the school and didn’t want to leave on bad terms and was tempted to not pursue it. With Edapt support the right tone was established and she decided she would ask for it to be rectified, pointing out the system hadn’t worked as it should.

The Outcome

Initially, when Daisy raised it, the school had pushed back. The Trust central finance team relied on the wording of the policy. However, with Edapt’s support, crafting an appropriately toned email to the right person the decision was reversed and Daisy was paid for the day in recognition of the failure in the system.

Our advice is ensure you read the school’s policy on events such as this as they may differ to the description above. Look out for the use of the word ‘normally’ in policies as this this gives the employer latitude to make bespoke decisions.

Find out more about the service we provide at Edapt: https://www.edapt.org.uk/