- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
The advantage of a points based system is that is transparent. Common sense is not - what is common sense to one person is not to the other.
Thank you so much.marcnath wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:15 pmWhich is why I said you should make both arguments.ind8889 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:48 pmmarcnath wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:21 pmThe problem is that this job/employee is confusing.
I believe the only reason HO defined it this way is to help the employers. It is impractical to insist that a person should be employed for 12 months - that is not in the control of the employer. So, they defined it as a job, so that if an employee resigns you can hire somebody else and still get the points.
But they have not been expecting that one JOB will have more than one employee at a time - which is what your case is.
As far as the rules are concerned, my personal opinion there should be no problem with that but it is something that is not so straightforward.
As said before, if you had said Job 2 is Employee B and Job 3 is Employee C and D, this would have been approved easily.
The way you put it, it needs the CW to think of all the combinations and they did not.
To their credit, they did try to work the three employees as three different jobs and hence came to the conclusion, which is potentially wrong.
As I said, in the AR, you can argue that ONE job can have TWO employees and together, there is 12 months (52 weeks) of more than 130 hrs/month.
You can and possibly should also argue that Employee C + D can be considered to be Job 3 and together they have more than 12 months as D replaced C.
Put both arguments in you AR. I think you have a very good chance the decision is overturned.
In case it is not, do a fresh application separating B from C and D.When i applied i showed only 2 jobs
For Admin review if i show there is 3 jobs. How he will consider it?
And he may query it why initially 2 jobs and now 3 job roles??
First showing how what you submitted is correct.
But then, add the other one also to say, if the 1st is not accepted, then HO should still have still considered C and D as a separate job and calculated accordingly.
You have only one AR chance, so the idea is to put as many arguments as you can in that one application.
It is possible they may not accept it, but you don't lose anything by trying.
Thank you so much.marcnath wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:21 pmThe problem is that this job/employee is confusing.
I believe the only reason HO defined it this way is to help the employers. It is impractical to insist that a person should be employed for 12 months - that is not in the control of the employer. So, they defined it as a job, so that if an employee resigns you can hire somebody else and still get the points.
But they have not been expecting that one JOB will have more than one employee at a time - which is what your case is.
As far as the rules are concerned, my personal opinion there should be no problem with that but it is something that is not so straightforward.
As said before, if you had said Job 2 is Employee B and Job 3 is Employee C and D, this would have been approved easily.
The way you put it, it needs the CW to think of all the combinations and they did not.
To their credit, they did try to work the three employees as three different jobs and hence came to the conclusion, which is potentially wrong.
As I said, in the AR, you can argue that ONE job can have TWO employees and together, there is 12 months (52 weeks) of more than 130 hrs/month.
You can and possibly should also argue that Employee C + D can be considered to be Job 3 and together they have more than 12 months as D replaced C.
Put both arguments in you AR. I think you have a very good chance the decision is overturned.
In case it is not, do a fresh application separating B from C and D.
Thank you Marcnath.marcnath wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:21 pmThe problem is that this job/employee is confusing.
I believe the only reason HO defined it this way is to help the employers. It is impractical to insist that a person should be employed for 12 months - that is not in the control of the employer. So, they defined it as a job, so that if an employee resigns you can hire somebody else and still get the points.
But they have not been expecting that one JOB will have more than one employee at a time - which is what your case is.
As far as the rules are concerned, my personal opinion there should be no problem with that but it is something that is not so straightforward.
As said before, if you had said Job 2 is Employee B and Job 3 is Employee C and D, this would have been approved easily.
The way you put it, it needs the CW to think of all the combinations and they did not.
To their credit, they did try to work the three employees as three different jobs and hence came to the conclusion, which is potentially wrong.
As I said, in the AR, you can argue that ONE job can have TWO employees and together, there is 12 months (52 weeks) of more than 130 hrs/month.
You can and possibly should also argue that Employee C + D can be considered to be Job 3 and together they have more than 12 months as D replaced C.
Put both arguments in you AR. I think you have a very good chance the decision is overturned.
In case it is not, do a fresh application separating B from C and D.
Good luck !!ind8889 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:02 pmThank you Marcnath.marcnath wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:21 pmThe problem is that this job/employee is confusing.
I believe the only reason HO defined it this way is to help the employers. It is impractical to insist that a person should be employed for 12 months - that is not in the control of the employer. So, they defined it as a job, so that if an employee resigns you can hire somebody else and still get the points.
But they have not been expecting that one JOB will have more than one employee at a time - which is what your case is.
As far as the rules are concerned, my personal opinion there should be no problem with that but it is something that is not so straightforward.
As said before, if you had said Job 2 is Employee B and Job 3 is Employee C and D, this would have been approved easily.
The way you put it, it needs the CW to think of all the combinations and they did not.
To their credit, they did try to work the three employees as three different jobs and hence came to the conclusion, which is potentially wrong.
As I said, in the AR, you can argue that ONE job can have TWO employees and together, there is 12 months (52 weeks) of more than 130 hrs/month.
You can and possibly should also argue that Employee C + D can be considered to be Job 3 and together they have more than 12 months as D replaced C.
Put both arguments in you AR. I think you have a very good chance the decision is overturned.
In case it is not, do a fresh application separating B from C and D.
I have submitted AR on last Friday with all the details as you mentioned in above.
if this was a pre 2014, then will the decision be wrong? Can we then combine the jobs which lasted for less than 12 months?
I don't think you are in the same boat, as discussed in your own thread.